Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evidence-based summary of preventive care for central venous access device-related thrombosis in hospitalized children

BMC Nursing volume 23, Article number: 664 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to summarize the latest and best evidence on central venous access device-related thrombosis (CRT) in hospitalized children, which provides theoretical support for standardizing the preventive care practice of CRT in hospitalized children.

Methods

Relevant guidelines, systematic reviews and expert consensuses were reviewed through ten guideline websites, six professional association websites and seven databases. The literature evaluation was conducted, and the best evidence from qualified studies was extracted and summarized. Furthermore, the best evidence was summarized through expert consultation and localized for the preventive care practice of CRT in hospitalized children in China.

Results

A total of 14 topics and 68 best evidence were collected, including personnel qualification and quality management, pediatric patient selection, risk assessment, central venous access device (CVAD) selection and use, tip position, catheter maintenance, basic prevention, drug prevention, imaging examination, health education, nursing records, follow-up, CVAD removal and others.

Conclusion

In this study, the best evidence based on evidence-based nursing was summarized, and expert consultation was adopted to localize the best evidence collected. It is of great significance to standardize the clinical practice of pediatric nurses and ensure the effectiveness of CRT preventive care for hospitalized children, thus guaranteeing the safety of hospitalized children with CVAD catheterization.

Peer Review reports

What is known

• CVAD is considered as the most significant risk factor of VTE in hospitalized children.

• Asymptomatic CRTs are reported to be more common than symptomatic CRTs and have a significantly increased risk of death.

• To the best of our knowledge, no clinical practice guidelines on CRT preventive care for children have been issued in China.

What is new

• The best evidence on the preventive care of CRT in hospitalized children could be used to provide pediatric nurses with an evidence-based reference in clinical practice.

• Evidence-based guidelines, systematic reviews and expert consensus endorsed by several authoritative academic resources were included by scientific methods to provide the best theoretical basis and technical standards for pediatric nurses to strengthen the risk prevention and management of CRT in hospitalized children, and guarantees the safety of children with tubes.

Introduction

The statistics indicate that about 25% of hospitalized children have received the central venous access device (CVAD) for treatment [1]. The employment of CVAD has strongly improved the quality of treatment and nursing care for hospitalized children. However, CVAD remains the most significant risk factor of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized children, with almost 90% of neonatal VTE and more than 60% of non-neonatal VTE associated with CVAD [2]. The VTE caused by CVAD is also known as central venous access device-related thrombosis (CRT), and the incidence of CRT has increased obviously in recent years [3]. Prospective studies from China [4], Austria [5], Spain [6], and the United States [7] show that the incidence of CRT in hospitalized children is 25.7%, 27.78%, 33.21%, and 43.53%, respectively; the studies from Canada indicate that the incidence of CRT in children receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is as high as 66.67% [8].

The CRT may be symptomatic for patients, with symptoms and signs related to inflammation or vascular obstruction, such as swelling and pain of arm/neck/head, vein dilation, skin pigmentation, extremity numbness, and CVAD dysfunction can lead to difficulties or even failure in venous blood collection or intravenous medication [9]. When the lower extremities are involved in CRT, acute life-threatening complications represented by deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) can occur, and its sequela includes recurrent thrombosis, postphlebitic syndrome, and complications of anticoagulant therapy [10]. The incidence of the long-term complications like post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and loss of limb function are also possible [11]. However, some CRT may be completely asymptomatic and only can be detected only by imaging techniques. Asymptomatic CRTs are reported to be more common than symptomatic CRTs and have a significantly increased risk of death [9]. There is a strong association between asymptomatic CRT and catheter complications like occlusion and infection related to CVAD [12]. These complications can not only increase medical costs but also prolong the hospital stay of patients and worsen the conditions requiring urgent systemic treatment or CVAD removal [13].

In essence, CRT is a response to the placement of foreign bodies (i.e. the CVAD) in blood vessels [3]. Nevertheless, clinical staff can take rational and objective approaches to prevent thrombosis based on a full understanding of CRT. Clinical nurses play a key role in the prevention of VTE by assessing, delineating risks, collecting information, providing advice and implementing preventive care for patients [14]. As a special type of VTE, CRT is closely related to the implanted CVAD in terms of etiology. However, the role of CVAD in clinical use should also be considered in the treatment [3]. Due to improper awareness and management of CRT, the psychological burden on healthcare workers, children and their families may be increased, leading to over-diagnosis and over-prevention. As a result, the application of CVAD is also hindered to some extent.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are of great significance for standardizing the clinical work of nurses and providing patients with rational nursing care [15]. Currently, research on clinical practice guidelines related to VTE prevention for patients has received wide attention. It is found that guidelines specifically aimed at health care providers, especially nurses, for CRT preventive care in hospitalized children are limited. The only clinical practice guideline that recommends the use of a long-term central venous catheter (CVC) in children with hematologic oncology focuses on the treatment of occlusions and thrombosis associated with CVC, rather than CRT preventive care [13]. However, considering the actual situation of China’s medical environment, the willingness of the children's families, and the favorable and hindering factors for pediatric nurses to use evidence-based evidence, whether the norms and standards involved in the foreign guidelines are applicable to China remains to be further explored. Moreover, no clinical practice guidelines on CRT preventive care for children have been issued in China. Therefore, this study summarizes the best evidence of the preventive care of CRT in hospitalized children based on evidence-based nursing and localizes the collected evidence by expert consultation methods, so as to provide scientific CRT prevention for hospitalized children.

Methods

The study has been enrolled in PROSPERO under the registration number of CRD42021265475.

Retrieval strategy

In this study, search terms of "venous thromboembolism, venous thrombosis, totally implantable venous access port, central venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheter, central venous access device" were employed to retrieve the following guidelines and professional association websites: ① guideline websites: Guidelines International Network (GIN), Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Joanna Briggs Institutem (JBI), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), British Medical Journals (BMJ), UpToDate, and Medlive guide; ② professional association websites: Infusion Nursing Society (INS), International Union of Angiology (IUA), International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), American Society of Hematology (ASH), American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) and Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN). The search of the guidelines and professional association websites was completed from July 18, 2021 to July 22, 2021.

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science English databases, as well as VIP, Wanfang and CNKI Chinese databases. The specific retrieval strategy was formulated according to the characteristics of each database. The time limit for database retrieval was from the establishment of each database to July 17, 2021, and the retrieval strategy was attached in Supplemental Material S1.

Literature inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria of the literature were as follows: (1) Published guidelines, systematic reviews and expert consensus; (2) Children (≤ 18 years old) with CVAD catheterization included in these studies; (3) Recommendations on risk factor assessment, prevention and management of CRT in children; (4) Clear recommendation; (5) Expressed in Chinese or English; (6) The revised guidelines should be incorporated into the latest version.

The exclusion criteria of the literature were as follows: (1) Guideline interpretation, translated versions of foreign guidelines and repeated guidelines; (2) Meeting summaries, draft guidelines, discussion drafts, and other relevant documents of guidelines; (3) Clinical practice implementation and application research of the guidelines; (4) Evidence list without methodological description; (5) Conference report, normative document and government draft; (6) Systematic reviews at the stage of the research plan or included in the guidelines; (7) No access to the full text.

Literature screening and data extraction

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the literature, two members of the research group who have received evidence-based nursing training independently screened the literature by reading the title, abstract and full text. If there was any disagreement, the two researchers should negotiate to resolve it. If they still cannot reach an agreement, the third researcher should be asked to step in and give his/her opinions. The data extraction table was made by the following items: articles (type), author/institution/organization, year (published/last updated), country, source (published institution/organization) and tools for evidence grading and recommendation strength.

Literature quality evaluation

The quality of the included articles was evaluated independently by three members of the research group trained in evidence-based nursing through the evaluation tools. If there was a conflict of opinion, the fourth member would be asked to make the judgment.

The evaluation of the Guidelines was conducted by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) [16]. The AGREE II covers six aspects: scope and object, participant, rigor, clarity, application, and independence. Based on the standardized scores in each field, the overall quality of the guidelines was evaluated, and whether to recommend the guidelines was formulated by the 3-level standards. The criteria are as follows [17, 18]: if the number of fields with a standardized score < 30% was greater than or equal to three, the guideline is considered to have poor evidence quality and is not recommended temporarily (Grade C); if there were fields with standardized scores < 60%, and the number of fields with scores ≥ 30% was greater than or equal to three, the guideline needs to be modified and then it is recommended (Grade B); if standardized scores in the six fields were all ≥ 60%, the guideline does not need to be modified and can be directly recommended (Grade A).

The systematic review was assessed by a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2) scale [19]. In the AMSTAR 2 scale, there are 16 items (items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 are critical items and the remaining are noncritical items) and 3 evaluation indexes ("Yes", "Partly yes", and "No"). Based on the criticality and evaluation results, the systematic review study was graded with "confidence", and there were four "confidence" quality levels, namely critically low-quality, low-quality, intermediate-quality and high-quality. The detailed classification of four "confidence" quality levels is as follows [19, 20]: if there is more than one key item with or without non-key items and does not meet the standard, the systematic review is rated as critically low; if only there is one key item accompanied by or not accompanied by non-key items and does not meet the standard, this systematic review is rated as low grade; if there are more than one non-key items and does not meet the standard, this systematic review is rated as intermediate; if there is less than one or equal to one noncritical item and does not meet the standard, this systematic review is rated as high.

The Expert Evaluation Standard (2016) of the JBI Evidence-based Health Care Center in Australia was used to evaluate studies based on expert opinions and professional consensus. The evaluation standard included 6 items, and the evaluation grade of each item was "yes", "no", "unclear" and "not applicable" [21]. The inclusion criteria of the literature were as follows [22]: at least four of the six items were rated "yes". The exclusion criteria of the literature were as follows: at least two of the six items had an evaluation grade of "unclear" or included an evaluation grade of "not applicable".

Evidence quality evaluation process

Content analysis was used to analyze the included articles. Taking the included articles as analysis samples, the main evidence of CRT preventive care in children was summarized, and the topic/sub-topic of the evidence was determined. In the process of extracting recommendations, when there were conflicting evidence conclusions from different sources, this study complied with the following principles [23]: evidence-based outcome, high-quality evidence, the latest published authoritative literature and guidelines authorized by Chinese institutions were preferred. Two trained members of the research group independently evaluated the included studies. In case of conflicting opinions, the third researcher made the final decision on inclusion or exclusion.

Criteria for determining evidence level and recommendation level

The recommendation level of the evidence follows the original rating level in the studies. If there are repeated recommendations in multiple guidelines, the guideline with the highest score will be selected based on the quality evaluation result of AGREE II scale, and the recommendation of evidence level in the guideline shall prevail. If the level and recommendation level of evidence in the original literature is not determined, the evidence will be evaluated by the JBI grading of evidence and recommendation system (2014 edition) [24]. According to the source of evidence and the type of literature, the evidence level of the included studies was pre-graded into five levels from Level 1 to Level 5. According to JBI feasibility, appropriateness, mean-fullness, and effectiveness (FAME) structure, the recommendation strength of evidence was determined to be strong recommendation or weak recommendation.

Expert consultation

In this study, relevant experts were invited to participate in online and offline meetings to collectively discuss the best evidence extracted. Ten experts from the Xiangya Nursing School and Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from different fields participated in this study, covering CVAD placement care, pediatric nursing, cardiovascular surgery nursing, nursing management, evidence-based nursing, nursing education, cardiovascular surgery and pharmacy. Xiangya Hospital is one of the China’s top tertiary class A general hospitals, integrating medical, educational and scientific research. JBI Xiangya Center for Evidence-Based Practice and Healthcare Innovation was established in 2019, serving as an excellent platform for evidence-based nursing research in this study. The purpose of expert consultation is to analyze the pros and cons and obstacles of nurses' application of evidence based on medical situation in China and the wishes of the children's families, improve relevant evidence or remove inapplicable evidence according to clinical applicability, and finally localize the best evidence.

Data analysis

The SPSS 20.0 was used for statistical analysis. The basic characteristics of the included articles were analyzed descriptively. In the quality evaluation process of the guidelines, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0 to 1.0 was used to evaluate the consistency of evaluation results among the three members of the research group [25]. When the ICC value is less than 0.40, it indicates that there is poor consistency among study members regarding the quality evaluation results of the guideline. If the ICC value ranges from 0.40 to 0.75, the consistency among the three members is fair. If the ICC value is greater than 0.75, the consistency among the three members is high [26]. The standardized score for each area of the guideline can be calculated by the following equation: (actual score—minimum possible score)/(maximum possible score—minimum possible score) × 100%. Then, the mean, minimum and maximum values were used to describe the standardized scores in each field. The general information of experts was analyzed by mean ± standard deviation or frequency (%), and the expert consultation results were evaluated by the authority degree of expert opinions. The individual authority coefficient of the expert was calculated as: (academic level + judgment basis + familiarity) /3. The overall authority coefficient of experts was calculated by the ratio of the sum of experts' individual authority coefficients to the number of experts [27].

Results

Selection process and general characteristics of the included articles

A total of 642 articles were initially retrieved. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 7 evidence-based guidelines, 7 systematic reviews and 9 expert consensuses were eventually included. Figure 1 shows the process of literature selection. Table 1 presents the basic features of the literature.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of literature screening

Full size image
Table 1 General information of included articles
Full size table

Quality evaluation results of the included articles

Quality evaluation results of the guidelines

Consistency tests for the intra-group correlation coefficients included in the guidelines were conducted. The results show that the ICC value of the guideline quality evaluation results of the three evaluators was all greater than 0.75 (P < 0.05), indicating good consistency among the evaluators in the evaluation process, as shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the standardized scores for the six areas of the guidelines. Among the six fields, the overall average score of five fields is more than 50%, among which the average score of the "clarity" field is the highest (90.48%), followed by the "independence" field (85.71%), and the average score of "application" field is the lowest (42.66%). The overall evaluation results are as follows: 1 guideline is grade A and highly recommended, and the remaining 6 guidelines are grade B and recommended to be used in clinical practice after modification.

Table 2 Results of internal consistency (ICC) test of evaluators
Full size table
Table 3 Quality evaluation results of the guidelines
Full size table

Quality evaluation results of systematic reviews

Among the 7 systematic reviews included in this study, the overall confidence of the study conducted by Barco et al. [34] is evaluated as “low”, studies conducted by Sharathkumar et al. [38] and Wang et al. [39] as “critically low”, and the rest as “high” [35,36,37, 40]. In terms of critical entries, 2 studies [34, 39] are not registered in advance, and 4 [34,35,36,37] studies contain the comprehensive retrieval. Schoot et al. [36] only provided a list of excluded articles without elaborating on the exclusion reasons. Barco et al. [34] did not merge the data due to an insufficient number of included studies, and Sharathkumar et al. [38] did not consider the risk bias. In the other 3 studies [35,36,37], the publication bias was fully analyzed. Supplemental Table S1 shows the quality evaluation results of systematic reviews by AMSTAR II. The articles were all included.

Quality evaluation results of expert consensuses

There are 9 expert consensuses included in this study. Consensus 2 [13] pointed out that CVC should be inserted into the superior vena cava system in the right limb (if possible) to prevent CRT. Consensus 3 [42] proposed that CVC should be inserted into the right internal jugular vein, which is inconsistent with the major opinions that CVC inserted from the left and right side of the body exists no difference in reducing CRT from other consensuses. Among all the items included in the study, at least 4 items were evaluated as "Yes", and the overall evaluation was high. Therefore, these studies were all included (Supplemental Table S2).

Summary and localization of the best evidence for CRT preventive care in hospitalized children

A total of 91 evidence were extracted and summarized in the first draft by using the method of content analysis. Evidence grading and recommendation strength were carried out in accordance with the principle of setting the evidence and recommendation levels in advance. Expert consultation was further carried out to localize the summarized evidence. The average age of experts was (41.40 ± 7.34) years old, and the average working years were (19.30 ± 12.00) years (Supplemental Table S3). The individual authority coefficient of 10 experts in this study was > 0.70, and the overall authority coefficient of the experts was 0.815, indicating that they have highly authoritative and the research results were acceptable (Supplemental Table S4). We revised and localized the items according to suggestions from experts. Finally, 68 best evidence were obtained from 14 topics, including personnel qualifications and quality management, pediatric patient selection, risk assessment, CVAD selection and use, tip position, catheter maintenance, basic prevention, drug prevention, imaging examination, health education, nursing records, follow-up, CVAD removal and others, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 The final version of evidence-based nursing program for CRT preventive care in hospitalized children
Full size table

Summary and description of best evidence

In this study, the best evidence conforming to the Chinese clinical situation for CRT preventive care in hospitalized children was summarized through comprehensive retrieval, systematic evaluation and expert analysis of relevant evidence-based resources. This provides a theoretical basis for Chinese pediatric nurses to strengthen the management of CRT in hospitalized children.

Personnel qualification and quality management

Articles 1–5 of the evidence summarize how to guarantee the personnel qualifications responsible for the management of CVAD, three of which are strong recommendations. It is necessary to construct a professional team for intravenous therapy to promote the establishment and implementation of standardized evidence-based practice protocols and policies [33]. The characteristics of different hospitals should be considered, such as the differences in hospital level, type (general hospital or specialized hospital), and the abilities of members of the intravenous therapy team, and then the training program should be developed in accordance with the characteristics of the hospital and the stage of the intravenous therapy team members. It is suggested to improve the quality control responsibility by establishing an evaluation index system, supervision system and improvement system for intravenous therapy [33].

Pediatric patient selection

Articles 6–7 provide a summary of the topic. CVAD is appropriate for individuals who require reliable long-term vascular access and are unable to utilize the peripheral venous route because of small, immature veins, poor tolerance of repeated venipuncture in children, frequent need for access and/or a caregiver’s inability to master peripheral vein access [41]. Therefore, CVADs can only be placed in a lien if the child has a therapeutic need. CVAD requires meticulous adherence to sterile technique, and the family’s capability and commitment to meet this requirement must be carefully evaluated. It is essential that caregivers must be able to monitor for and recognize complications, such as infection, thrombosis and mechanical problems [41].

Risk assessment

Five strong recommendations are included on this topic. The majority of pediatric patients with CRT are asymptomatic [48]. The systematic review conducted by Neshat-Vahid et al. has shown that among the included 16 studies of 1279 pediatric patients with CVCs, the incidence of symptomatic CRT is only 5% [49]. Therefore, a high index of suspicion regarding the presence of CRT should be maintained for it is usually asymptomatic [33, 41]. It is recommended to assess the risk of CRT in children [43]. Multiple risk factors have been associated with a higher risk of CRT [33, 39, 40]. Routine thrombotic screening prior to initial CVAD placement is not recommended unless the patient has ever experienced a thromboembolic event unrelated to the catheter [41]. The screening for thrombophilia depends on the following clinical circumstances [50]: ①If the child's first VTE episode is associated with CVAD, screening for thrombophilia is not recommended. ②If the child has recurrent VTE (including recurrent CRT), a thrombophilia screening is recommended. ③For individuals with a clear family history of VTE or thrombophilia, e.g., a first-degree relative under 40 years old with VTE, thrombophilia screening is recommended if there are other risk factors or underlying diseases contributing to the risk of thromboses, such as cancer, CVAD, trauma, or major surgery.

CVAD selection and use

Articles 13–24 summarize the selection and use of CVAD from size, type, site, puncture, fixation, and time, 8 of which are strong recommendations. The appropriate intravenous therapeutic device should be selected according to the physicochemical properties of the drug, and the age, venous conditions, treatment duration, and disease status of the child [33]. On the premise of meeting medical needs, CVAD with the least number of lumens and the minimum diameter should be selected [3]. Placement of CVAD from the left or right side of the body did not significantly reduce the incidence of CRT [29, 30]. There are insufficient data to support a preference for the jugular or subclavian vein for CVAD. Femoral vein access is associated with a high risk of thrombosis in children and should be avoided if possible [29, 30]. The maximum duration that CVAD can be left in place has not been determined [41], but in children with ALL, there is no definitive evidence that delaying CVAD placement until the end of ALL induction therapy reduces the risk of CRT, and the delayed placement in children with poor venous access may also result in physiological and psychological consequences to some extent [29]. Ultrasound-guided CVAD placement significantly improves the rate of success, reduces the times of punctures, and decreases the incidence of complications [47]. Studies from the United States and Australia have demonstrated no difference in catheter failure and complications when CVADs are secured by different methods [51,52,53].

Tip position

Articles 25–29 are summarized on this topic, all of which are strong recommendations. When the catheter tip is closer to the right atrium, the blood flow at the location of the catheter increases, thereby rapidly diluting the drug and reducing the damage to the intima. At the same time, it also lowers the ratio of the drug liquid volume to the blood flow, and has less impact on local hemodynamics [3]. Studies have shown that a reduced risk of CRT is reduced when the catheter tip is located in the lower 1/3 of the superior vena cava or the junction of the right atrium and the superior vena cava [54, 55]. CVAD should not be used until the catheter tip position is confirmed or adjusted by ultrasound, X-ray or other imaging modality [3, 33, 41].

Catheters maintenance

Articles 30–34 summarize the methods to reduce catheter dysfunction, 3 of which are strong recommendations. Catheter dysfunction plays an important role in unplanned catheter removal, including thrombotic dysfunction caused by thrombus, fibrin sheaths, and fibrin tails in the lumen (about 60%), and non-thrombotic dysfunction due to drug precipitation or mechanical problems [56]. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) [57] and a systematic review [58] showed no difference between saline irrigation and heparin irrigation in preventing CRT, reducing deposition to ensure long-term catheter use, and both were safe and effective. When a non-invasive needle is used to maintain the PORT patency, flushing with saline is followed by drug or blood administration and then saline is recommended [47]. Moreover, studies have shown a significant difference in the flushing effectiveness between the needle tip inclined plane parallel and opposite to the outlet channel when inserted into the puncture septum, the latter method is better [47].

Basic prevention

Article 35 summarizes the basic prevention of CRT and is a strong recommendation. Non-drug strategies are encouraged to use to prevent CRT if possible. One study noted that children with malignant tumors and their families had poor compliance with PICC implants during daily fist exercises [59]. The following medical counseling games are proven to be effective in improving the basic prevention of CRT in children with ALL and their families. Due to the unhealed puncture wound in the early stage and the pain, the child is afraid of exercise. In the case of little blood leakage, the child is encouraged to moderately move the arm. Before the first maintenance of PICC, the child is encouraged to perform the "Little Tail Love Exercise" supervised by the guardians: Firstly, the child can watch the pre-recorded arm exercise video at the bedside. Secondly, the nurse demonstrates it face to face and teaches the child to do the loose-fist clenching, arm straightening-bending and ear-touching exercises, with 3 times a day and 20 actions each time. Finally, a "thumbs up" will be given to the child after completing tasks [60].

Drug prevention

Articles 36–40 are summarized on this topic, 3 of which are strong recommendations. Currently, the preventive use of anticoagulants or thrombolytic drugs for the sole purpose to prevent CRT is not recommended [3, 13, 30, 34,35,36, 38, 42, 47], but LWMH should be considered for children at high risk of thrombosis [13]. Low molecular weight heparin is associated with a lower risk of thrombocytopenia and osteoporosis than unfractionated heparin, and less interference with medication and diet than vitamin K antagonists [13]. Studies [36, 61] have shown that LMWH is not found to increase the bleeding risk, but further data are needed to demonstrate the value of CRT prevention in children with various specific diseases [3]. A meta-analysis [37] revealed that heparin-bonded catheters do not reduce the CRT and thrombocytopenia, indicating whether the CVAD is bonded with heparin or not is not significant. It is recommended to use t-PA to restore the patency of blocked CVAD, and an ultrasound should be performed if two doses of local thrombolysis make no difference in the patency [32].

Imaging examination

Articles 41–42 are summarized on this topic, one of which is rated as strong recommendation. When a CRT is suspected, Ultrasound Doppler is preferred, which can indicate the location and extent of CRT and infer the thrombus freshness based on echo intensity [62]. However, the use of ultrasound to screen for CRT indiscriminately is not recommended [63]. CT or MRI may be an option if Doppler is not available or the results are unreliable or suspected to be false negatives [13]. Thrombosis in the vena cava, common iliac vein, subclavian vein, and nameless vein, as well as coexisting extravascular compression factors like tumors and thoracic outlet compression, can be clearly diagnosed by CT or MRI [64].

Health education

Articles 43–48 are summarized on this topic, and only article 43 is rated as strong recommendation. Healthcare providers should teach children and caregivers about the purpose of administration, the use of infusion devices, and the risk of potential complications, and avoid excessive use of medical terminology in health education [65]. It is important to note that preschool children should not be allowed access to CVADs and that any caregiver who will assist in the maintenance of the CVAD should attend a course of training [41]. Caregiver competency should also be assessed, such that caregivers demonstrate the care of CVAD on the model and the child at least twice [41]. In order to promote health education for children and their families, an educational checklist related to intravenous therapy in hospital or at home is available, consisting of four parts [33]: (1) General information about the child (name, age, weight); (2) The main caregivers (education level, willingness to learn, religious beliefs, language communication fluency); (3) Teaching methods (oral, written, multimedia, demonstration, others); (4) Teaching contents. The medical staff should inform the children and their caregivers that if the skin at the puncture site of CVAD is swollen, the local dressing oozes blood and liquid, and the film is wet, loose or curled, they should immediately contact the medical staff and return to the hospital for treatment if necessary.

Nursing records

Articles 49–50 are summarized on this topic, one of which is rated as strong recommendation. A complete record regarding CVAD nursing and problems is of great significance for tracking the whole process of catheters placement and providing a clinical basis for further management and improvement of CVAD, and facilitating the data collection for nursing teaching and research [41]. Considering that electronic health records (EHRs) are commonly applied in clinical practice nowadays, and nurses have limited ability to assess the safety of venous access and intravascular catheters, the role of EHRs in strengthening symptom monitoring, risk warning and clinical decision support deserves further exploration to promote the implementation of standardized intravascular catheter surveillance [66].

Follow-up

Articles 51–55 are summarized on this topic, 3 of which is rated as strong recommendation. Children with CVAD catheterization often travel back and forth between their families and hospitals. Based on this particularity, pediatric nurses need to follow up with the children and their caregivers to meet their nursing needs after discharge and ensure the continuity of nursing services. For pediatric nurses, guidelines should be developed and instituted for ongoing management, tracking and follow-up in CVAD treatment centers, and the knowledge of and adherence to guidelines should be periodically assessed in all CVAD users [41]. For children, regular follow-up is recommended for children requiring long-term CVAD placement to reconsider the need for CVAD [38], and for rapidly growing children, X-rays of the catheter tip position are recommended to monitor for abnormal positioning of the tip [41]. For caregivers, their skills in using the CVAD should be reassessed at each comprehensive follow-up visit, and if the catheter becomes problematic, more frequent monitoring and enhanced care of the CVAD should be executed [41].

CVAD removal

Articles 56–66 summarize the indications, time, and operations, of removal, and precautions in special cases, and treatment of difficulty in removal after CRT, 5 of which are rated as strong recommendations. Current guidelines do not recommend routine catheter removal [65, 67, 68]. If the catheter is still required for treatment, it should be retained and used under anticoagulation therapy [65, 67, 69]. When there is a combination of contraindications to anticoagulation, or continued progression of symptoms despite anticoagulation therapy, catheter removal should be considered. In clinical practice, however, the dependence on catheters for treatment and the feasibility of re-establishing venous access need to be assessed [3]. For patients who are highly catheter-dependent and have difficulty establishing new venous access, the value of retaining the catheter needs to be weighed against the other potential risks associated with thrombosis, and the catheter can be retained under close observation and follow-up [3]. In terms of timing of catheter removal, for catheter-associated DVT, it is recommended to be removed after a period of anticoagulation to facilitate thrombus stabilization [70]. However, for other types of CRT, the removal timing is not restricted considering the small volume of the thrombus [3].

Others

Articles 67–68 are summarized on this topic and article 68 is rated as strong recommendation. It should be noted that CRT prevention in children cannot be separated from overall VTE prevention, especially the DVT of the lower extremities caused by CRT is greatly harmful to children. Therefore, it is still necessary to take appropriate preventive measures against the risk factors of VTE for children at a high risk of CRT [3].

Study strengths and limitations

In this study, the best evidence on the preventive care of CRT in hospitalized children was summarized and localized to provide pediatric nurses with an evidence-based reference in clinical practice. This study provides a theoretical basis and technical standards for pediatric nurses to strengthen the risk prevention and management of CRT in hospitalized children, and guarantees the safety of children with tubes.

Nevertheless, this study only summarizes the evidence and has not yet completed the transition from scientific evidence to clinical practice, and the evidence-based decision-making and practice are required to validate the effectiveness of the best evidence of CRT preventive care for children.

Conclusions

In this study, an evidence-based nursing prevention program for CRT in hospitalized children was constructed through a rigorous and scientific process of literature search and screening, literature quality evaluation, best evidence aggregation, and expert consultation. In the adaptive application process, the latest evidence and the professional judgment of nurses are complementary in implementation, that is, the evidence points to gaps in nursing practice, and the professional judgment of nursing helps the evidence to truly take root in the clinical situation. Therefore, it is recommended for nurses to use the best evidence combined with their own clinical experience, patient needs, and actual clinical scenarios, to develop individualized preventive care and management plan and ultimately realize the transformation of the best evidence.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary appendix.

Abbreviations

CVAD:

Central venous access device

VTE:

Venous thromboembolism

CRT:

Central venous access device-related thrombosis

DVT:

Deep venous thrombosis

PE:

Pulmonary embolism

PTS:

Post-thrombotic syndrome

CVC:

Central venous catheter

References

  1. Kleidon TM, Rickard CM, Schults JA, Mihala G, McBride CA, Rudkin J, et al. Development of a paediatric central venous access device database: A retrospective cohort study of practice evolution and risk factors for device failure. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56:289–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Monagle P, Cuello CA, Augustine C, Bonduel M, Brandão LR, Capman T, et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 Guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: Treatment of pediatric venous thromboembolism. Blood Adv. 2018;2:3292–316.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheng F, Fu QN, He PY, Qi LX, Sun WY, Wu ZP, et al. Chinese expert consensus on prevention and treatment catheter related venous thrombosis (2020 edition). Chin J Pract Surg. 2020;40:377–83.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zeng XY. Analysis of high risk factors associated with catheter-related thrombosis in children with central venous catheterization. Zhejiang: Zhejiang University; 2019.

  5. Hanslik A, Thom K, Haumer M, Kitzmüller E, Albinni S, Wolfsberger M, et al. Incidence and diagnosis of thrombosis in children with short-term central venous lines of the upper venous system. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1284–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Menéndez JJ, Verdú C, Calderón B, Gómez-Zamora A, Schüffelmann C, de la Cruz JJ, et al. Incidence and risk factors of superficial and deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in children. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14:2158–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Faustino EV, Li S, Silva CT, Pinto MG, Qin L, Tala JA, et al. Factor VIII may predict catheter-related thr-ombosis in critically ill children: a preliminary study. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015;16:497–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Andrew M, Marzinotto V, Pencharz P, Zlotkin S, Burrows P, Ingram J, et al. A cross-sectional study of catheter-related thrombosis in children receiving total parenteral nutrition at home. J Pediatr. 1995;126:358–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Boersma RS, Jie KS, Verbon A, van Pampus EC, Schouten HC. Thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:433–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Monagle P, Adams M, Mahoney M, Ali K, Barnard D, Bernstein M, et al. Outcome of Pediatric Thromboembolic Disease: A Report from the Canadian Childhood Thrombophilia Registry. Pediatr Res. 2000;47:763–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldenberg NA, Donadini MP, Kahn SR, Crowther M, Kenet G, Nowak-Göttl U, et al. Post-thrombotic syndrome in children: a systematic review of frequency of occurrence, validity of outcome measures, and prognostic factors. Haematologica. 2010;95:1952–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Journeycake JM, Buchanan GR. Catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and other catheter complications in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4575–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Giordano P, Saracco P, Grassi M, Luciani M, Banov L, Carraro F, et al. Recommendations for the use of long-term central venous catheter (CVC) in children with hemato-oncological disorders: management of CVC-related occlusion and CVC-related thrombosis. On behalf of the coagulation defects working group and the supportive therapy working group of the Italian Association of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP). Ann Hematol. 2015;94:1765–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tang X, Sun B, Yang Y, Tong Z. A survey of the knowledge of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among the medical staff of intensive care units in North China. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0139162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang Q. Construction of evidence-based nursing practice for prevention of catheter-related infections of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. Tianjin: Tianjin Medical University; 2020.

  16. Gavriilidis P, Askari A, Roberts KJ, Sutcliffe RP. Appraisal of the current guidelines for management of cholangiocarcinoma- using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2020;9:126–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dai Q, Ding YP, Yu J, Xu JJ, Zhu M, Wu Y. Summary of best evidences for exercise management intervention in patients with type 1 diabetes. Nurs Res. 2019;33(20):3563–7.

  18. Jin Y, Wang Y, Zhang Y, et al. Nursing practice guidelines in China do need reform: a critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument. World Evid-Based NU. 2016;13(2):124–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang W, Dong Y, Shen J. AMSTAR 2 Quality Evaluation and GRADE Evidence Grading of Systematic Review of Acupuncture Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis. Chin J Inf Tradit Chin Med. 2021;28(10):45–50.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hu Y, Hao YF. Evidence-based nursing (2nd Edition). Peking: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2018. p. 77.

  22. Qu C, Guo H, Wei Y, et al. Best Evidence Summary of Fatigue Management After Maintenance Hemodialysis. J Nurs. 2021;28(05):43–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wang Y, Li LY, Wu J, Tian SY, Wang ZW. Evidence summary for creating dementia-friendly environments. J Nurs Sci. 2020;35:19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Q, Hu Y. JBI Evidence Pre-grading and Evidence Recommendation Level System (2014 edition). J Nurs Training. 2015;30(11):964–7. https://caod.oriprobe.com/order.htm?id=45298868&ftext=base.

  25. Qiao J. The Estimation of Technical Efficiency based on Double-lag Stochastic Frontier Model. Stats Info Forum. 2016;31:44–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li LY, Wang Y, Wang ZW. Quality appraisal and content analysis of guidelines on the assessment and management of eating problems among dementia patients. Chin J Nurs. 2019;54:581–8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang CZ, Si Q. Research on Data Statistical Processing Method and Its Application in Delphi Method. J Inner Mongolia Univ Finance and Econ. 2011;09:92–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hartman C, Shamir R, Simchowitz V, Lohner S, Cai W, Decsi T, et al. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Complications. Clin Nutr. 2018;37:2418–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sibson KR, Biss TT, Furness CL, Grainger JD, Hough RE, Macartney C, et al. BSH Guideline: management of thrombotic and haemostatic issues in paediatric malignancy. Br J Haematol. 2018;180:511–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schiffer CA, Mangu PB, Wade JC, Camp-Sorrell D, Cope DG, El-Rayes BF, et al. Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1357–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Expert Committee of Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Thrombotic Diseases in China,. Chinese Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Thrombotic Diseases. Chin Med J. 2018;98:2861–88.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Monagle P, Chan AKC, Goldenberg NA, Ichord RN, Journeycake JM, Nowak-Göttl U, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in neonates and children: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141:e737S-e801S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Working group on evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice of intravenous infusion therapy in children,. Evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice of intravenous infusion therapy in children. Chin J Evid Based Pediatr. 2021;16:1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Barco S, Atema JJ, Coppens M, Serlie MJ, Middeldorp S. Anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of catheter-related thrombosis in adults and children on parenteral nutrition: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Blood Transfus. 2017;15:369–77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Brandão LR, Shah N, Shah PS. Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of central venous catheterization-related thrombosis in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10(3):CD005982. 

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schoot RA, Kremer LC, van de Wetering MD, van Ommen CH. Systemic treatments for the prevention of venous thrombo-embolic events in paediatric cancer patients with tunnelled central venous catheters. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(9):CD009160. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009160.pub2.

  37. Shah PS, Shah N. Heparin-bonded catheters for prolonging the patency of central venous catheters in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(2):CD005983. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005983.pub3.

  38. Sharathkumar AA, Biss T, Kulkarni K, Ahuja S, Regan M, Male C, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of clinically unsuspected venous thromboembolism in children: A systematic review. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;18:1100–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang WC, Wang YW, Kang QF, GU Y, JI FT, WANG R, et al. Central venous access device-related thrombosis in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin J Evid Based Pediatr. 2020;15:419–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Tian L, Li W, Su Y, Gao H, Yang Q, Lin P, et al. Risk Factors for Central Venous Access Device-Related Thrombosis in Hospitalized Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2021;121:625–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ewenstein BM, Valentino LA, Journeycake JM, Tarantino MD, Shapiro AD, Blanchette VS, et al. Consensus recommendations for use of central venous access devices in haemophilia. Haemophilia. 2004;10:629–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Debourdeau P, Farge D, Beckers M, Baglin C, Bauersachs RM, Brenner B, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer. J Thromb Haemost. 2013;11:71–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Expert Committee of Thrombosis and Vascular Special Fund of China Health Promotion Foundation. Chinese expert consensus on mechanical prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chin Med J. 2020;100:484–92.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shanghai Cooperation Group on Central Venous Access; Expert Committee on Vascular Access, Committee of Experts on Focused Diagnosis and Treatment of Solid Tumors, Shanghai Anti-Cancer Association. Consensus of Shanghai experts on totally implantable access port (2019). J Interv Radiol. 2019;28:1123–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chinese College of Interventionalists. Expert consensus on the intervention of implantable drug administration device. Chin Med J. 2019;99:484–90.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zhejiang Implantable Venous Access Port Collaboration Group( ZIVAPCG). Multidisciplinary consensus on clinical application of implantable venous access port (Zhejiang). J Pract Oncol. 2018;33:17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  47. The Expert Group on Safety Management of Central Venous Access Device. The expert consensus on safety management of central venous access device (2019). Chin Surg J. 2020;58:261–72.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Citla Sridhar D, Abou-Ismail MY, Ahuja SP. Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in children and adults. Thromb Res. 2020;187:103–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Neshat-Vahid S, Pierce R, Hersey D, Raffini LJ, Faustino EV. Association of thrombophilia and catheter-associated thrombosis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14(9):1749–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Raffini L, Mahoney DH, Armsby C. Thrombophilia testing in children and adolescents. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/thrombophilia-testing-in-children-and-adolescents. Accessed 22 Jul 2021.

  51. Ullman AJ, Kleidon T, Gibson V, McBride CA, Mihala G, Cooke M, et al. Innovative dressing and securement of tunneled central venous access devices in pediatrics: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:595.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kleidon TM, Ullman AJ, Gibson V, Chaseling B, Schoutrop J, Mihala G, et al. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Dressing and Securement Techniques in 101 Pediatric Patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:1548–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Laudenbach N, Braun CA, Klaverkamp L, Hedman-Dennis S. Stabilization and the rate of complications in children: an exploratory study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014;29:348–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Saber W, Moua T, Williams EC, Verso M, Agnelli G, Couban S, et al. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: a patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9:312–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Caers J, Fontaine C, Vinh-Hung V, De Mey J, Ponnet G, Oost C, et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:325–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Baskin JL, Pui CH, Reiss U, Wilimas JA, Metzger ML, Ribeiro RC, et al. Management of occlusion and thrombosis associated with long-term indwelling central venous catheters. Lancet. 2009;374:159–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Lyons MG, Phalen AG. A randomized controlled comparison of flushing protocols in home care patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Infus Nurs. 2014;37:270–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. López-Briz E, Ruiz Garcia V, Cabello JB, Bort-Marti S, Carbonell Sanchis R, Burls A. Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(10):CD008462. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008462.pub2.

  59. Wang QY, Mo L, Shi L, Wang ZJ, Li X, Zhang P. The current situation and influence factors of PICC care in children with cancer during intermittent chemotherapy. Chin Nurs Manag. 2017;17:486–90.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wang MH, Yang Q, Liu QQ, Shen TT, Ren LQ, Guo Q. Application effect of medical counseling games in PICC catheterization for children with acute leukemia. Chin Gen Pract Nurs. 2021;19:2915–8.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kirkpatrick A, Rathbun S, Whitsett T, Raskob G. Prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2007;120:901–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bates SM, Jaeschke R, Stevens SM, Goodacre S, Wells PS, Stevenson MD, et al. Diagnosis of DVT. Chest. 2012;141:e351S-e418S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Feng WH, Fu QN, Zhao Y. Clinical significance of color doppler ultrasound screening for venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients before central venous catheterization and extubation. Pract Med J. 2017;33:1662–4.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vascular Surgery Group, Surgery Branch, Chinese Medical Association Diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for deep vein thrombosis (3rd edition). Chin J Gen Surg. 2017;32:807–12.

  65. Gorski LA. The 2016 infusion therapy standards of practice. Home healthcare now. 2017;35:10–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schults JA, Ball DL, Sullivan C, Rossow N, Ray-Barruel G, Walker RM, et al. Mapping progress in intravascular catheter quality surveillance: An Australian case study of electronic medical record data linkage. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:962130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kearon C. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease. Chest. 2012;141:419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lyman GH, Bohlke K, Khorana AA, Kuderer NM, Lee AY, Arcelus JI, et al. Venous thromboem-bolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guide-line Update 2014. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:654–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kucher N. Deep-vein thrombosis of the upper extremities. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:861–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Crawford JD, Liem TK, Moneta GL. Management of catheter-associated upper extremity deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2015;4:375–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Regional Science Fund (Grant Nos. 72064037) and Youth Fund (Grant Nos. 72304261) of National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lingyun Tian and Xinyu Feng contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China

    Lingyun Tian

  2. Xiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China

    Lingyun Tian, Hui Luo, Weijuan Li, Mengyuan Liu & Jing Jiang

  3. Centre for Smart Health, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon City, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Xinyu Feng

  4. Teaching and Research Section of Clinical Nursing, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China

    Yinglan Li

  5. National Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Disorder, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China

    Yinglan Li

  6. School of Nursing, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China

    Yinglan Li

Authors
  1. Lingyun Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinyu Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hui Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Weijuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mengyuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jing Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yinglan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LT and YL: conception and design. YL: administrative support. LT, XF, ML and JJ: collection and assembly of data. LT, XF, HL and WL: data analysis and interpretation. LT and XF: drafting of the manuscript. All authors were responsible for the critical revision of the manuscript and reviewing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yinglan Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study was obtained by a medical ethics committee in Northwest China [No. 20200326-02]. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, L., Feng, X., Luo, H. et al. Evidence-based summary of preventive care for central venous access device-related thrombosis in hospitalized children. BMC Nurs 23, 664 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02294-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02294-0

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us