...
首页> 外文期刊>JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. >Rate of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections Between Tunneled Central Venous Catheters Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-analysis
【24h】

Rate of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections Between Tunneled Central Venous Catheters Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Meta-analysis

机译:隧道中央静脉导管之间的导管相关血流感染率与成人家庭肠胃外营养的外周插入中心导管:荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background Tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are often used for the provision of home parenteral nutrition (HPN). There is no formal comparison being made to study the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) between TCVCs and PICC in HPN to recommend the use of 1 over the other. Methods An online MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus search was conducted. Studies reporting the rate of CRBSI in HPN patients were included. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses were used to analyze comparative studies, whereas Begg and Pilote's random effects meta-analysis was used to pool and analyze single-arm studies. Results Seventeen studies (12 single-arm studies and 5 comparative studies) were included for analysis. Meta-analysis of comparative studies showed that PICC use was associated with a significantly lower rate of CRBSI (relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.83), whereas meta-analysis of single-arm studies revealed that the relative risk for CRBSI was not statistically significantly different from unity. Conclusion TCVC is more commonly used in long-term HPN. Our analysis of comparative studies showed a lower rate of CRBSI in HPN patients using PICC compared with TCVC; however, analysis of single-arm studies showed that the rate of CRBSI was comparable in PICC and TCVC use. The decision to which type of catheter is most suited for HPN patients should hence be based on the duration of treatment, level of care, patients' dexterity, as well patients' underlying comorbidities that may potentially contribute to other catheter-related complications.
机译:背景技术隧道中央静脉导管(TCVC)和外围插入的中央导管(PICC)通常用于提供家庭肠胃外营养(HPN)。没有正式比较来研究HPN中TCVCS和PICC之间的导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)的速率,以建议使用1。方法进行了在线MEDLINE,PUBMED和SCOPUS搜索。包括报告HPN患者CRBSI率的研究。使用Meta分析来分析比较研究,而Begg和Pilote的随机效应Meta分析用于汇集和分析单臂研究。结果将有17项研究(12个单臂研究和5项比较研究)进行分析。比较研究的荟萃分析表明,PICC使用与CRBSI的显着较低率(相对风险(RR)0.40,95%CI 0.19-0.83)相关,而单手术研究的荟萃分析揭示了相对风险CRBSI没有统计学上与UNI统一有明显不同。结论TCVC更常用于长期HPN。我们对比较研究的分析表明,与TCVC相比,使用PICC的HPN患者CRBSI率较低;然而,单臂研究的分析表明,CRBSI的速率在PICC和TCVC中使用。最适合HPN患者最适合哪种类型的导管的决定应该基于治疗持续时间,护理水平,患者的潜在潜在的合并症,这可能导致与其他导管相关的并发症有贡献。

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