4.5 Review

Obesity and the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-022-01166-z

Keywords

Obesity; Catheter-related bloodstream infection; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between obesity and the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection. The results indicated that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m(2) or higher had an increased risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection. Furthermore, overweight, obesity, and severe obesity were all significantly associated with a higher risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection.
Background The role of obesity in catheter-related bloodstream infection has been reported in several studies, but it is still controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to summarize existing evidence to assess the relationship between obesity and the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science for the related studies published before January 2022. Meta-analysis was performed by use of a random-effects model. Results A total of 5 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with body mass index >= 25 kg/m(2) had an increased risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.38-2.22) in overall analysis. Further analysis indicated that patients with overweight, obesity and severely obesity were all significantly associated with a higher risk of for catheter-related bloodstream infection (OR 1.51 [1.10-2.08], OR 1.43 [1.12-1.82] and OR 2.74 [1.85-4.05], respectively). Conclusion This meta-analysis provided evidence that obesity was significantly associated with a higher risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection. Close attention should be paid to the complications and prognosis of obese patients with vascular catheterization in clinical work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available