Multiple versus single lumen umbilical venous catheters for newborn infants.
BACKGROUND: Multiple lumen umbilical venous catheters (ML-UVCs) instead of single lumen UVCs (SL-UVCs) may decrease the need for additional venous lines. Although it seems self-evident that ML-UVCs would reduce the need of additional venous lines, the rates of associated complications might be different. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and the safety of ML-UVCs versus SL-UVCs in terms of need of additional vascular access, rates of complications, morbidity and mortality in newborn infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials were identified by searching the MEDLINE (1966 - February 2005), EMBASE (1980- February 2005), CINAHL (1982 - February 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004) and Science Direct (subject area: medicine, journal and abstract database; 1967 to February 2005). Literature search also included a manual search of the abstracts of scientific meetings published in Pediatric Research (1990-2004). Additional citations were sought using references in articles retrieved from searches. Subject experts were contacted to identify the unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials comparing safety and efficacy of multiple versus single lumen umbilical venous catheter in neonates (both term and preterm) who were in need of umbilical venous catheter insertion for vascular access in first four weeks of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author performed data extraction independently and differences were resolved by discussion. The following outcomes were determined: total number of additional peripheral intravenous lines per baby in first week and first four weeks of life, total number of additional percutaneously and surgically placed central venous lines per baby in first four weeks of life, and other safety and efficacy measures. The treatment effect estimators used were RR, RD, and WMD when appropriate along with their 95% CI. If RD was statistically significant, then number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies qualified for inclusion in this review (Khilnani 1991; Loisel 1996; Soupre 1998). There was a decrease in the ML-UVCs group in the number of additional PIVs used in the first week of life [WMD -1.42, (95% CI -1.74, -1.10), p<0.00001, number of infants (n) = 99]. There was no significant effect on the number of additional PIVs used in the first four weeks of life [MD -2.30, (95% CI -6.65, 2.05), n=36]. There was an increase in catheter malfunction in the ML-UVCs group [typical RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.99, 13.81), p=0.05; RD 0.15 (95% CI 0.03, 0.27), p=0.01; NNH was 7, 95% CI 4, 33; n=99]. The following outcomes were not significantly different in the two groups: clinical sepsis, catheter related blood stream infection, catheter-associated thrombosis, complications related to catheter malposition in heart and great vessels, NEC and early neonatal mortality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.