首页> 外文期刊>Critical care medicine >The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review.
【24h】

The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review.

机译:用抗感染剂治疗的中心静脉导管在预防导管相关的血液感染方面的临床效果:系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters (CVCs) treated with anti-infective agents (AI-CVCs) in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, SCI//Web of Science, SCI/ISI Proceedings, and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using internationally recognized methodology. All included articles were reports of randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical effectiveness of CVCs treated with AI-CVCs with either standard CVCs or another anti-infective treated catheter. Articles requiring in-house preparation of catheters or that only reported interim data were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was carried out independently and crosschecked by two reviewers using a pretested data extraction form. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the effectiveness of AI-CVCs in preventing CRBSI, compared with standard CVCs. Results are presented in forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Methodologic quality was generally poor. Meta-analyses of data from 27 trials assessing CRBSI showed a strong treatment effect in favor of AI-CVCs (odds ratio 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.37-0.64) fixed effects, test for heterogeneity, chi-square = 28.78, df = 26, p = 0.321, I = 9.7). Results subgrouped by the different types of anti-infective treatments generally demonstrated treatment effects favoring the treated catheters. Sensitivity analyses investigating the effects of methodologic differences showed no differences to the overall conclusions of the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: AI-CVCs appear to be effective in reducing CRBSI compared with standard CVCs. However, it is important to establish whether this effect remains in settings where infection-prevention bundles of care are established as routine practice. This review does not address this question and further research is required.
机译:目的:评估用抗感染药(AI-CVC)治疗的中心静脉导管(CVC)在预防导管相关的血流感染(CRBSI)方面的临床效果。数据源:MEDLINE(OVID),EMBASE,SCI // Web of Science,SCI / ISI会议录和Cochrane库。研究选择:使用国际认可的方法对文献进行系统的回顾。所有纳入的文章均为随机对照试验的报告,比较了用AI-CVC与标准CVC或另一种抗感染治疗的导管治疗的CVC的临床效果。排除需要内部准备导管或仅报告临时数据的文章。数据提取:数据提取独立进行,并由两名审阅者使用预先测试的数据提取表进行交叉检查。数据综合:进行荟萃分析,以评估AI-CVC与标准CVC相比在预防CRBSI方面的有效性。结果以95%的置信区间显示在林区中。结果:38项随机对照试验符合纳入标准。方法学质量普遍较差。对27项评估CRBSI的试验数据进行的荟萃分析显示,对AI-CVC有很强的治疗效果(赔率0.49(95%置信区间0.37-0.64)固定效应,异质性检验,卡方检验= 28.78,df = 26 ,p = 0.321,I = 9.7)。按不同类型的抗感染治疗分组的结果通常显示出有利于治疗导管的治疗效果。调查方法学差异影响的敏感性分析表明,与主要分析的总体结论没有差异。结论:与标准CVC相比,AI-CVC似乎在减少CRBSI方面有效。但是,重要的是要确定这种效果是否仍然存在于常规实践中建立了预防感染的护理包的环境中。这篇评论没有解决这个问题,需要进一步的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号