4.6 Review

Should In-line Filters Be Used in Peripheral Intravenous Catheters to Prevent Infusion-Related Phlebitis? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
Volume 110, Issue 6, Pages 1624-1629

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181da8342

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, we assessed the effect of in-line filters on infusion-related phlebitis associated with peripheral IV catheters. The study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register up to August 10, 2009. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data on phlebitis were combined when appropriate, using a random-effects model. The impact of the risk of phlebitis in the control group (baseline risk) on the effect of in-line filters was studied by using meta-regression based on the bivariate meta-analysis model. The quality of the evidence was determined by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method. RESULTS: Eleven trials (1633 peripheral catheters) were included in this review to compare the effect of in-line filters on the incidence of phlebitis in hospitalized patients. Baseline risks across trials ranged from 23% to 96%. Meta-analysis of all trials showed that in-line filters reduced the risk of infusion-related phlebitis (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.00). This benefit, however, is very uncertain, because the trials had serious methodological shortcomings and meta-analysis revealed marked unexplained statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0000, I-2 = 90.4%). The estimated benefit did not depend on baseline risk. CONCLUSION: In-line filters in peripheral IV catheters cannot be recommended routinely, because evidence of their benefit is uncertain. (Anesth Analg 2010; 110: 1624-9)

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