Skip to main content

Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections following ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Ultrasonographic guidance is widely used for central venous catheterization. Several studies have revealed that ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization increases the rate of success during the first attempt and reduces the procedural duration when compared to the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique, which could result in protection from infectious complications. However, the effect of ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization on catheter-related bloodstream infections remains unclear. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of ultrasound guidance in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections and catheter colonization associated with central venous catheterization.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE (via PubMed) were searched up to May 9, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided insertion techniques for central venous catheterization. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs. A meta-analysis was performed for catheter-related bloodstream infections and catheter colonization, as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.

Results

Four RCTs involving 1268 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization was associated with a slightly lower incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16–1.32) and was not associated with a lower incidence of catheter colonization (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.57–3.26).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization might reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Additional RCTs are necessary to further evaluate the value of ultrasound guidance in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections with central venous catheterization.

Peer Review reports

Background

The ultrasound-guided insertion technique for central venous catheterization is widely used, as it is reported to increase the success rate and decrease the rate of mechanical complications such as arterial mispuncture, pneumothrax, and hematoma when compared to the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique [1,2,3].

Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are serious complications associated with central venous catheterization. They can result in increased costs and risk of mortality [4,5,6,7]. The incidence of CRBSIs was reported to be 2.2 to 2.79 infections per 1000 catheter days [8, 9]. An increase in the success rate of the first attempt and shortening of the procedural duration by ultrasound guidance can result in protection from contamination of catheters as well as the insertion site during insertion, and ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization is recommended for preventing CRBSIs in pediatric intensive care units [10]. Furthermore, several guidelines also recommend the use of ultrasonography, which minimizes contamination by reducing the number of attempts and breakdown of the aseptic technique and decreases the rate of CRBSIs in adults and children [11,12,13,14]. However, the clinical evidence remains unclear.

A recent post hoc analysis of three randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the ultrasound-guided insertion technique was associated with an increased risk of CRBSIs [15]. However, the patients were not randomized according to the insertion technique. Therefore, the association between ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization and CRBSIs remains unclear. Ultrasound guidance may reduce the number of attempts but may increase contamination during the process of manipulation. Although ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization is mandatory today, we hypothesized that it would be worthwhile to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound guidance on the incidence of CRBSIs. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the value of ultrasound guidance in preventing CRBSIs and catheter colonization associated with central venous catheterization.

Methods

Search strategy

This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines [16] and was based on the methodology recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). The protocol of the study was registered with PROSPERO (registration No. CRD 42,022,319,649).

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for relevant randomized controlled trials up to May 9, 2022. We used the following search terms, with the language restricted to English: (“ultrasound” or “ultrasonography” or “ultrasonographically”) and (“central venous catheter”) and (“randomized controlled trial” or “controlled clinical trial” or “randomized” or “placebo” or “randomly” or “trial” or “group”). The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies involving patients (P) who underwent central venous catheterization; studies in which the intervention (I) was ultrasound-guided central catheter insertion; studies in which the control (C) was the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique; and studies with CRBSIs and catheter colonization as outcomes (O).

Study selection

Following the removal of duplicates using the Rayyan QCRI software (https://rayyan.ai/), two authors reviewed the titles and abstracts independently and assessed the eligibility of various manuscripts. Then, full texts were assessed for eligibility. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion, and a consensus was reached.

Data collection and quality assessment: risk of bias assessment and GRADE approach

The following data were extracted by two authors independently: First author, year of publication, country, age of patients, sample size, and outcome. Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs [17], the risk of bias was assessed by two authors independently. The included trials were classified as having a low risk of bias, some concern, or a high risk of bias. The quality of evidence of each outcome was graded according to the criteria established by the GRADE working group [18]. Any disagreement was settled through discussion until a consensus was reached.

Data analyses

The primary outcome of this systematic review was incidence of CRBSIs. The secondary outcome was catheter colonization. We defined CRBSIs and catheter colonization according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America [19]. All data analyses were executed using Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). The weighted treatment effect was calculated across trials. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. All reported p-values were two-sided, and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. We evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 test, and significant heterogeneity was considered present if I2 > 50%. Random-effects models were used in this meta-analysis. Publication bias was assessed by searching trials that had been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform but had not been published. A funnel plot was not used as < 10 studies were included for each outcome.

Results

Literature search

After removing duplicates, 581 articles were identified. Following exclusion, 23 studies were screened for eligibility using full texts. Four studies [20,21,22,23] were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. The literature search and study selection processes are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of literature search

Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the included trials are summarized in Table 1. The four included studies involved 1268 central venous catheterizations: 633 ultrasound-guided catheterizations and 635 anatomical landmark-guided catheterizations. All four studies reported the incidence of CRBSIs, and one study [20] reported the incidence of catheter colonization for ultrasound-guided central catheter insertion and anatomical landmark-guided insertion. One study [22] did not describe sterilization and other three studies used povidone-iodine. Only one study [23] reported that the catheter insertion days were 10.1 ± 5.8 and 10.5 ± 5.2 (mean ± standard deviation) days in ultrasound-guided and landmark-guided groups, respectively. Only one study [23] reported the CRBSIs as the primary outcome. CRBSIs were defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [24] in the two studies [21, 23]. CRBSIs were not defined in the other two studies [20, 22].

Table 1 Main characteristics of the included studies

Risk of Bias in the included studies

The summary of the risk of bias are shown in Fig. 2. Overall, the four trials were categorized as having some concerns.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias summary

Primary outcome

All four trials that were included reported the difference in the incidence of CRBSIs between the ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided insertion techniques for central venous catheterization. Two studies had no events in either arm; therefore, we excluded these from the meta-analysis according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3. After pooling the trials, the ultrasound-guided insertion technique was associated with a slightly lower incidence of CRBSIs than the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique (RR, 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16–1.32; p = 0.15 [Fig. 3(a)]). The absolute effect of ultrasound guidance in preventing CRBSIs was 81 fewer per 1000 (from 126 fewer to 48 more) patients, as a point estimate. Significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies with respect to CRBSIs (I2 = 56%). The evidence summary is shown in Table 2. The microbiology data of the two included studies is shown in Supplemental Table 1.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot comparing the incidence of (a) CRBSIs and (b) catheter colonization for ultrasound-guided versus anatomical landmark-guided central venous catheterization

CRBSIs, catheter-related bloodstream infections; US, ultrasound-guided insertion; LM, landmark-guided insertion

Table 2 Evidence summary

Secondary outcome

One of the four included trials reported the incidence of catheter colonization in both the ultrasound-guided and the anatomical landmark-guided insertion techniques for central venous catheterization. The ultrasound-guided insertion technique was not associated with a lower incidence of catheter colonization than the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.57–3.26; p = 0.49 [Fig. 3(b)]). The evidence summary is shown in Table 2.

Discussion

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared the efficacy of ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided central venous catheterization with respect to CRBSIs as well as catheter colonization. From the available data, this study suggests that the ultrasound-guided insertion technique might be associated with a lower incidence of CRBSIs than anatomical landmark-guided insertion techniques.

Numerous studies have compared the outcomes of insertion success and early complication rates between ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided central venous catheterization. However, most studies did not focus on CRBSIs, which have been reportedly associated with increased mortality [4,5,6], and patients would certainly benefit from reducing the incidence of this complication. In our literature search, only four randomized controlled trials compared the outcome of CRBSIs between ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided central venous catheterization. Two studies [20, 22] were excluded from the meta-analysis because there were no events in either arm, and this meta-analysis did not show the efficacy of ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization on the incidence of CRBSIs. Although the point estimate of RR is 0.46, the wide CI including 1 suggests the decreased certainty. Regarding catheter colonization, only one study [20] was included in the meta-analysis, and no association was observed between ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization and catheter colonization.

Two observational studies have compared the incidence of CRBSIs between ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided central venous catheterization; however, the difference was not statistically significant [25, 26]. Buetti et al. performed a post hoc analysis of three randomized controlled trials and demonstrated that the ultrasound-guided insertion technique was associated with an increased risk of CRBSIs (hazard ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.17–4.16; p = 0.014) [15]. In that study, uncertainty about ultrasound techniques, including hygiene compliance, was stated as a limitation. Furthermore, as these studies randomized the patients according to the catheter insertion sites, skin asepsis, and dressings and not the insertion technique, the results may have been influenced by several confounding factors, especially because ultrasonographic guidance tends to be used in difficult or severe cases.

Regarding catheter insertion sites, one multi-center randomized controlled trial reported that the incidence of catheter colonization was higher in the femoral vein than in the internal jugular vein, while the incidence of CRBSIs was not different between the two veins [27]. Of the four studies included in our meta-analysis, one study adopted the internal jugular or femoral vein and patients were stratified according to the insertion site. In the three other studies, the insertion site was the internal jugular vein. Therefore, the insertion site itself is unlikely to have had much effect on the results.

This study had some limitations. First, only two studies and a relatively small number of patients were included in this meta-analysis, and significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies on CRBSIs. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Second, only one included study focused on CRBSIs as a primary outcome. Third, only critically ill patients were included in the study. Finally, all the included studies detailed the use of povidone-iodine and not chlorhexidine for sterilization; therefore, caution should be exercised when extrapolating to the current practice of central venous catheterization.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization might reduce the incidence of CRBSIs. However, only four studies were included in this systematic review. Additional randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization on the incidence of CRBSIs and catheter colonization.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

CRBSIs:

catheter-related bloodstream infections

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

RR:

risk ratio

CI:

confidence interval

References

  1. Lamperti M, Biasucci DG, Disma N, Pittiruti M, Breschan C, Vailati D, et al. European Society of anaesthesiology guidelines on peri-operative use of ultrasound-guided for vascular access (PERSEUS vascular access). Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2020;37:344–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oulego-Erroz I, González-Cortes R, García-Soler P, Balaguer-Gargallo M, Frías-Pérez M, Mayordomo-Colunga J, et al. Ultrasound-guided or landmark techniques for central venous catheter placement in critically ill children. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4985-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:CD006962. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006962.pub2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olaechea PM, Palomar M, Álvarez-Lerma F, Otal JJ, Insausti J, López-Pueyo MJ, et al. Morbidity and mortality associated with primary and catheter-related bloodstream infections in critically ill patients. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2013;26:21–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stevens V, Geiger K, Concannon C, Nelson RE, Brown J, Dumyati G. Inpatient costs, mortality and 30-day re-admission in patients with central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:O318-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siempos II, Kopterides P, Tsangaris I, Dimopoulou I, Armaganidis AE. Impact of catheter-related bloodstream infections on the mortality of critically ill patients: A meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:22839. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a02a67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schreiber PW, Sax H, Wolfensberger A, Clack L, Kuster SP, Swissnoso. The preventable proportion of healthcare-associated infections 2005–2016: systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39:1277–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lorente L, Henry C, Martín MM, Jiménez A, Mora ML. Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Crit Care. 2005;9:R631-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dudeck MA, Horan TC, Peterson KD, Allen-Bridson K, Morrell GC, Pollock DA, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) report, data summary for 2009, device-associated module. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39:349–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biasucci DG, Pittiruti M, Taddei A, Picconi E, Pizza A, Celentano D, et al. Targeting zero catheter-related bloodstream infections in pediatric intensive care unit: a retrospective matched case-control study. J Vasc Access. 2018;19:119–24. https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M, Blaivas M, Augoustides JG, Elbarbary M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:1105–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2597-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(Suppl 1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, Golsorkhi M, Tingle A, Bak A, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(Suppl 1):1–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6701(13)60012-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marschall J, Mermel LA, Fakih M, Hadaway L, Kallen A, O’Grady NP, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:753–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/676533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buetti N, Mimoz O, Mermel L, Ruckly S, Mongardon N, Dupuis C, et al. Ultrasound Guidance and Risk for Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections in the Intensive Care Unit: A Post Hoc Analysis of Individual Data of 3 Multicenter Randomized Trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73:e1054-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Cochrane Methods. ROB 2.0. https://methods.cochrane.org/riskbias-2 Accessed 14 September 2022.

  18. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P, O’Grady NP, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49:1–45. https://doi.org/10.1086/599376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Airapetian N, Maizel J, Langelle F, Modeliar SS, Karakitsos D, Dupont H, et al. Ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation is superior to quick-look ultrasound and landmark methods among inexperienced operators: a prospective randomized study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1938–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-3072-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, Patrianakos AP, Kouraklis G, Poularas J, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care. 2006;10:R162. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dolu H, Goksu S, Sahin L, Ozen O, Eken L. Comparison of an ultrasound-guided technique versus a landmark-guided technique for internal jugular vein cannulation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:177–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-014-9585-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gok F, Kilicaslan A, Sarkilar G, Kandemir B, Yosunkaya A. Effect of ultrasound guidance on central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Acta Med Mediterr. 2013;29:677–82.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Center for Disease Control and Prevention DC. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, Data Summary from January 1992–June issued August 2001. Am J Infect Control. 2001;29:404–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Imataki O, Shimatani M, Ohue Y, Uemura M. Effect of ultrasound-guided central venous catheter insertion on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections and mechanical complications. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19:857. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4487-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cartier V, Haenny A, Inan C, Walder B, Zingg W. No association between ultrasound-guided insertion of central venous catheters and bloodstream infection: a prospective observational study. J Hosp Infect. 2014;87:103–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2014.03.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Parienti JJ, Mongardon N, Mégarbane B, Mira JP, Kalfon P, Gros A, et al. Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1220–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1500964.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JT, KT, YN, and NS contributed to the design of the study. JT, KT, and YN participated in literature search and data collection. JT and NS performed the statistical analysis. JT wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nobuaki Shime.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takeshita, J., Tachibana, K., Nakajima, Y. et al. Incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections following ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis 22, 772 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07760-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07760-1

Keywords

  • Central venous catheterization
  • Ultrasonography
  • Bloodstream infections
  • Incidence