Objective To assess economic evaluation of PICC and Central Venous Catheter (CVC)/Venous Port Access (VPA), and to provide evidence for decisionmaker and practitioner selecting suitable central venous access. Methods The literature on economic evaluation of PICC and CVC/VPA were searched through the database in domestic and overseas by computer from database building to January 4th, 2018. Two reviewers selected the literature and extracted data independently, and the quality of included studies were assessed according to the critical appraisal of economic evaluations using the JBI ACTUARI assessment tool. Results Totally 10 studies were included, the quality of 6 studies were moderate, the other 4 were low quality, and the main defects were failing to describe the methods of cost measurement, failing to justify the discount rate, and failing to present sensitivity analysis. All studies were cost analysis, seven of which compared the cost of PICC and CVC, there were great differences on item costs and the total cost of catheterization and maintenance. And six studies compared the cost of PICC and VPA, which found the item cost of PICC catheterization was lower than that of VPA, while its item cost of maintenance was higher than that of VPA, and there was difference in the total cost of catheterization, maintenance and removal of catheter. Conclusion The research on economic evaluation of PICC and CVC/VPA is lack, and the evaluation results are inconsistent because the content and methods of economic evaluation were irregular. It is necessary to conduct high quality, large sample and regular economic evaluation research using costeffectiveness/costbenefit/costutility analysis, so as to provide evidence for decision makers and practitioners choosing suitable central venous access.