Cargando…

Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in the use of second-generation central venous catheters impregnated in clorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine when compared with other catheters, being them impregnated or not, in order to prevent the bloodstream infection prevention. METHOD: system...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki, Hoers, Hellen, Pott, Franciele Soares, Crozeta, Karla, Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida, Meier, Marineli Joaquim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27508901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0756.2722
_version_ 1782448629711110144
author Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki
Hoers, Hellen
Pott, Franciele Soares
Crozeta, Karla
Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida
Meier, Marineli Joaquim
author_facet Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki
Hoers, Hellen
Pott, Franciele Soares
Crozeta, Karla
Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida
Meier, Marineli Joaquim
author_sort Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in the use of second-generation central venous catheters impregnated in clorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine when compared with other catheters, being them impregnated or not, in order to prevent the bloodstream infection prevention. METHOD: systematic review with meta-analysis. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS/SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL; search in Congress Proceedings and records from Clinical Trials. RESULTS: 1.235 studies were identified, 97 were pre-selected and 4 were included. In catheter-related bloodstream infection, there was no statistical significance between second-generation impregnated catheter compared with the non-impregnated ones, absolute relative risk 1,5% confidence interval 95% (3%-1%), relative risk 0,68 (confidence interval 95%, 0,40-1,15) and number needed to treat 66. In the sensitivity analysis, there was less bloodstream infection in impregnated catheters (relative risk 0,50, confidence interval 95%, 0,26-0,96). Lower colonization, absolute relative risk 9,6% (confidence interval 95%, 10% to 4%), relative risk 0,51 (confidence interval 95% from 0,38-0,85) and number needed to treat 5. CONCLUSION: the use of second-generation catheters was effective in reducing the catheter colonization and infection when a sensitivity analysis is performed. Future clinical trials are suggested to evaluate sepsis rates, mortality and adverse effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4990028
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49900282016-08-31 Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki Hoers, Hellen Pott, Franciele Soares Crozeta, Karla Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida Meier, Marineli Joaquim Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Review Articles OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in the use of second-generation central venous catheters impregnated in clorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine when compared with other catheters, being them impregnated or not, in order to prevent the bloodstream infection prevention. METHOD: systematic review with meta-analysis. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS/SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL; search in Congress Proceedings and records from Clinical Trials. RESULTS: 1.235 studies were identified, 97 were pre-selected and 4 were included. In catheter-related bloodstream infection, there was no statistical significance between second-generation impregnated catheter compared with the non-impregnated ones, absolute relative risk 1,5% confidence interval 95% (3%-1%), relative risk 0,68 (confidence interval 95%, 0,40-1,15) and number needed to treat 66. In the sensitivity analysis, there was less bloodstream infection in impregnated catheters (relative risk 0,50, confidence interval 95%, 0,26-0,96). Lower colonization, absolute relative risk 9,6% (confidence interval 95%, 10% to 4%), relative risk 0,51 (confidence interval 95% from 0,38-0,85) and number needed to treat 5. CONCLUSION: the use of second-generation catheters was effective in reducing the catheter colonization and infection when a sensitivity analysis is performed. Future clinical trials are suggested to evaluate sepsis rates, mortality and adverse effects. Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo 2016-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4990028/ /pubmed/27508901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0756.2722 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
spellingShingle Review Articles
Stocco, Janislei Gislei Dorociaki
Hoers, Hellen
Pott, Franciele Soares
Crozeta, Karla
Barbosa, Dulce Aparecida
Meier, Marineli Joaquim
Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title_full Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title_fullStr Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title_short Second-Generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
title_sort second-generation central venous catheter in the prevention of bloodstream infection: a systematic review
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27508901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0756.2722
work_keys_str_mv AT stoccojanisleigisleidorociaki secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview
AT hoershellen secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview
AT pottfrancielesoares secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview
AT crozetakarla secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview
AT barbosadulceaparecida secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview
AT meiermarinelijoaquim secondgenerationcentralvenouscatheterinthepreventionofbloodstreaminfectionasystematicreview