Table 2a.

Studies of the Effect of CVC Type on Risk of Infectious Complications during PN.

Study	Study Design	Population (Age)	No. of Patients (Port vs. External CVC)	Infection Risk (Port vs. External CVC)	P-value
Santarpia et al.	Prospective consecutive	All PN patients (38–76 y)	159 vs. 71	23% vs. 10%	P = 0.03
Shirotani et al.	Retrospective chart review	All PN patients (46–75 y)	23 vs. 45	0.5 vs. 0.5/1000 d	P = 0.4
Pomp et al.	Retrospective and prospective	All PN patients (24–66 y)	15 vs. 21	0.4 vs. 2.5/1000 d	NR
Cotogni et al.	Prospective	Adult patients with cancer (29–85 y)	72 vs. 45	0.5 vs. 0.7/1000 d	NR
Buchman et al.	Retrospective chart review	All PN patients (6–87 y)	318 vs. 66	0.7 vs. 0.4/1000 d	P = 0.001
Christensen et al.	Prospective	Pediatric patients with cancer (0.1–21 y)	16 vs. 79	31% vs. 38%	P = 0.78
Bozzetti et al.	Retrospective questionnaire	All PN patients (20–89 y)	44 vs. 403	27% vs. 15%	P = 0.04
Gaggioti et al.	Retrospective chart review	Patients with both devices (32–65 y)	6 vs. 6	0.9 vs. 3.3/1000 d	NR
Howard et al.	Retrospective chart review	All PN patients (13–74 y)	27 vs. 48	0.6 vs. 0.7/1000 d	NR
Present study	Retrospective chart review	Pediatric patients with cancer (0.5–24 y)	40 vs. 40	4.6 vs. 2.7/1000 d	P = 0.52

PN, parenteral nutrition; CVC, central venous catheter; CLABSI, central line–associated bloodstream infection; NR, not reported; d, day; y, year. Where data were provided separately for the PN period, this is reported. Most studies combined data on site and bloodstream infection, but where CLABSI data were provided separately, this is the figure reported.