4.6 Review

Anti-infective-treated central venous catheters:: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 12, Pages 2058-2068

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0897-3

Keywords

central venous catheter; catheter-related bloodstream infection; systematic review; randomized controlled trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This systematic review assesses the effect of anti-infective-treated central venous catheters (CVCs) on catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in the acute care setting. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were retrieved from Medline and the Cochrane Library up to 15 January 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data for CRBSI were combined where appropriate, using a random effects model. The impact of the risk for CRBSI in the control group ( baseline risk) on the benefit of anti-infective CVCs was studied by using meta-regression based on the binomial normal bivariate meta-analysis model. Results: Twenty-one trials were included in the review. Mainly intensive care (IC) patients were studied. Eighteen trials showed that anti-infective CVCs reduced the risk of CRBSI. The number needed to treat (NNT) varied from 182 to 12, with baseline risks ranging from 1% to 10%. Nearly all trials had serious methodological shortcomings. Three trials comparing minocycline-rifampicin-treated catheters with antiseptic-treated catheters showed inconsistent results. One trial suggested that there is not any difference in CRBSI between heparin- and antiseptic-treated CVCs. Conclusion: Because the NNT is large when the baseline risk is low, the use of anti-infective-treated CVCs in the acute care setting should only be considered in situations in which background rates of CRBSI are high. The magnitude of benefit as calculated in this review should be interpreted with caution because of strong arguments in favor of a systematic overestimation of the effect. Which type of anti-infective catheter is most effective could not be established from the available data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available