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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |