Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Translumbar Inferior Vena Cava Catheters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To examine the reported adverse events associated with inferior vena cava (IVC) catheterization and investigate the reasons for discrepancies between reports. Materials and Methods: Cochrane Library trials register, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies that included any terms of IVC and phrases related to catheters or central access. Of the 5,075 searched studies, 137 were included in the full-text evaluation. Of these, 37 studies were included in the systematic review, and the adverse events reported in 16 of these 37 identified studies were analyzed. An inverse-variance random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Outcomes were summarized by the incidence rate (IR) and 95% CI. Results: Compared with that of catheters <10 F in size (IR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03–0.12), the incidence of catheter-related infections per 100 catheter days was 0.2 more for catheters ≥10 F in size (IR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.25–0.31). In addition, dual-lumen catheters showed 0.13 more malfunction per 100 catheter days (IR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–0.37) than that shown by single-lumen catheters (IR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.09–0.19). Both differences were statistically significant. Other adverse events were malposition (IR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.04–0.05), fracture (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.02), kinking (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.01), replaced catheter (IR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1–0.31), removal (IR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.1–0.16), IVC thrombosis (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.03), and retroperitoneal hematoma (IR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00–0.01), all per 100 catheter days. Conclusions: Translumbar IVC access is an option for patients with exhausted central veins. Small-caliber catheters cause fewer catheter-related infections, and single-lumen catheters function longer.