A randomized trial comparing peripherally inserted central venous catheters and peripheral intravenous catheters in infants with very low birth weight. Double lumen umbilical venous catheters in critically ill neonates: a randomized prospective study.
To determine whether percutaneously inserted central venous catheters (PICC) and peripheral intravenous catheters (PIV) in infants with very low birth weight (VLBW) differ with respect to (1) incidence of sepsis, (2) number of insertion attempts and catheters required for total intravenous therapy, (3) courses of antibiotics, and (4) total duration of intravenous (IV) use.
                A randomized comparative trial was conducted involving 63 VLBW infants (<1,251 g) who required IV therapy. Infants were assigned randomly at 1 week of age to either a PIV or a PICC catheter and followed up prospectively until an IV was no longer required or the infant was transferred out of the neonatal intensive care unit.
                Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. There was no difference in the incidence of sepsis (P = .64), number of courses of antibiotics (P = .16), or total duration of IV use (P= .34) between the 2 groups. The number of insertion attempts required for total IV therapy was significantly lower in the PICC group than in the PIV group (P = .008). There also was a significantly lower number of total catheters utilized in the PICC group (P = .002). When data were controlled for birth weight strata the results were similar.
                PICC lines reduced the number of painful IV procedures in VLBW infants without additional morbidity. To compare relative efficacies and complications associated with the use of double lumen vs. single lumen umbilical venous catheters in critically ill neonates.
                Prospective randomized control trial.
                Neonatal ICU.
                Forty-three critically ill neonates.
                Group 1 patients (n = 20) received single lumen umbilical venous catheters and group 2 patients (n = 23) received double lumen catheters. A record of the following information was kept: demographic data including diagnosis and indication for umbilical venous catheter insertion, catheter tip location, length of catheterization (days), number of additional iv catheters and complications (sepsis, hepatic necrosis, thrombosis, or mechanical complications).
                Double lumen umbilical venous catheters were well tolerated and were associated with no significant increased risk of mechanical complications when compared with single lumen umbilical venous catheters. The number of additional iv catheters required (0.8 +/- 0.1 [SD]) was significantly (p less than .05) less in the double lumen umbilical venous catheter group as compared with additional iv catheters required (2.3 +/- 0.8) in the single lumen umbilical venous catheter group.
                Double lumen umbilical venous catheters are well tolerated for short-term use, decrease the need for additional venous catheters in critically ill neonates, and may not significantly increase the risk of mechanical complications when compared with single lumen umbilical venous catheters.
The use of ML-UVCs in comparison to SL-UVCs in neonates is associated with decrease in the usage of PIVs in first week of life, but an increase in catheter malfunctions. As the quality of included randomized studies is poor and the estimates of clinically important complications are imprecise, no firm recommendations can be made regarding the choice of UVC. Adequately powered, properly randomized and properly blinded controlled trials are needed that address the effectiveness and safety of ML-UVCs (double and triple lumen) in comparison to SL-UVCs. These studies should also address the impact of type of catheter material.