Dataset Information

Necessity of heparin for maintaining peripheral venous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Heparin has typically been used as a flushing or infusion solution for vascular lines in daily practice. However, several clinical trials have yielded controversial results about the benefits of heparin in maintaining peripheral venous catheters. The present meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of heparin on the patency profiles and complications in peripheral intravenous catheters. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 2016 for randomized controlled trials comparing heparin with placebo in maintaining peripheral intravenous catheters. Additional studies were retrieved from the reference lists of identified articles. In total 32 eligible studies were included, from which the pooled standard mean difference (SMD), relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The use of heparin as a continuous infusion significantly prolonged the duration of patency (SMD, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.48-1.32; P<0.001), reduced rates of infusion failure (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.92; P<0.001) and occlusion (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; P<0.05) in a peripheral intravenous catheter. However, there were no significant changes in the duration of patency and infusion failure when heparin was used intermittently as a flushing solution, although a significantly decreased risk of occlusion was observed in this setting (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; P<0.05). Furthermore, the risk of phlebitis was significantly decreased by both continuous infusion (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75; P<0.01) and intermittent flushing (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; P<0.01) of heparin in peripheral venous catheters. In conclusion, the use of heparin as continuous infusion in peripheral intravenous catheters improved the duration of patency, reduced infusion failure and phlebitis, whereas heparin as intermittent flushing showed more benefits in ameliorating phlebitis rather than in patency profiles.

SUBMITTER: You T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5526172 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) require adequate maintenance based on heparin or saline locks in order to prevent complications. Heparin has proven effective in central venous catheters, although its use in PVCs remains controversial. Our hypothesis was that saline locks are as effective as heparin locks in preventing problems with PVCs. The objective of the present study was to compare phlebitis and catheter tip colonization rates between PVCs locked with saline and those locked with heparin in patients admitted to an internal medicine department (IMD). METHODS:We performed a 19-month prospective, controlled, open-label, randomized clinical study of patients with at least 1 PVC admitted to the IMD of our hospital. The patients were randomized to receive saline solution (PosiFlush®, group A) or heparin (Fibrilin®, group B) for daily maintenance of the PVC. Clinical and microbiological data were monitored to investigate the frequency of phlebitis, catheter tip colonization, and catheter-related bloodstream infection (C-RBSI), as well as crude mortality, days of hospital stay, and days of antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS:We assessed 339 PVCs (241 patients), of which 192 (56.6%) were locked with saline (group A) and 147 (43.4%) with heparin (group B). The main demographic characteristics of the patients were distributed equally between the 2 study groups. The median (IQR) catheter days was 5 (3-8) for both groups (p = 0.64). The frequency of phlebitis was 17.7% for group A and 13.3% for group B (p = 0.30). The frequency of colonization of PVC tips was 14.6% and 12.2% in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.63). Only 2 episodes of C-RBSI were detected (1 patient in group A). Saline lock was not an independent factor for phlebitis or catheter colonization. CONCLUSIONS:Our study revealed no statistically significant differences in the frequency of phlebitis and catheter tip colonization between PVCs locked with saline and PVCs locked with heparin. We suggest that PVC can be maintained with saline solution, as it is safer and cheaper than heparin.

Project description:To assess the efficacy of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters in preventing catheter-related infections during external ventricular drainage (EVD), we performed a meta-analysis and systematic review. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized prospective studies (NPSs) related to antimicrobial-impregnated EVD catheters were included. The primary outcome was the rate of cerebrospinal fluid infection (CFI). The secondary outcomes included the rate of time-dependent CFI and catheter bacterial colonization. We further performed subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis, and microbial spectrum analysis. Four RCTs and four NPSs were included. The overall rate of CFIs was 3.6% in the antimicrobial-impregnated catheter group and 13.7% in the standard catheter group. The pooled data demonstrated that antimicrobial-impregnated catheters were superior to standard catheters in lowering the rate of CFIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.12 to 0.52, P <0.05). In survival analysis, the 20-day infection rate was significantly reduced with the use of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters (hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.95, P <0.05). Furthermore, a significantly decreased rate of catheter bacterial colonization was noticed for antimicrobial-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.64, P <0.05). In subgroup analyses, although significant results remained for RCTs and NPSs, a subgroup difference was revealed (P <0.05). Compared with standard catheters, a significantly lower rate of CFIs was noticed for clindamycin/rifampin-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.73, P <0.05) and for minocycline/rifampin-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.21, P <0.05). However, no statistical significance was found when compared with silver-impregnated catheters (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.69, P = 0.18). In microbial spectrum analysis, antimicrobial-impregnated catheters were shown to have a lower rate of Gram-positive bacterial infection, particularly the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. In conclusion, the use of antimicrobial-impregnated EVD catheters could be beneficial for the prevention of CFI and catheter bacterial colonization. Although antibiotic-coated catheters seem to be effective, no sufficient evidence supports the efficacy of silver-impregnated catheters.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) increases the risks of PIVC-associated complications and infections compared to routine replacement of PIVCs.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare the safety outcomes of routine replacement and clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs were included for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of phlebitis, and secondary outcomes included the risks of occlusion, local infection, infiltration, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and accidental removal of the PIVC.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs involving 10 973 patients were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5,546 and 5,527 were assigned to the study group (clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs) and control group (routine replacement of PIVCs every 72-96 h), respectively. The incidence of phlebitis in the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group [risk ratio (RR), 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.44, P = 0.04, I2 = 49%]. In addition, the study group was associated with a higher risk of occlusion (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.08-1.95, P = 0.01, I2 = 82%) and infiltration (fluid leaks) (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.53, P = 0.01, I2 = 72%) than the control group. However, no significant differences were observed in the risks of local infection (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.38-8.16, P = 0.48, I2 = 0%) and CRBSI (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.08-4.68, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%) between the study and control groups.ConclusionThe clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs may increase the risks of PIVC-associated phlebitis, infiltration, and occlusion compared to the routine replacement of PIVCs, but did not increase the risk of PIVC-associated infections. Based on these findings, routine replacement of PIVCs every 72-96 h maybe a preferred option than clinically indicated replacement of PIVCs.Systematic review registration[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022302021].

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the evidence of effectiveness of dressings applied to venous leg ulcers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesHand searches of journals and searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies up to April 2006; contacts with dressing manufacturers for unpublished studies.Studies reviewedAll randomised controlled trials that evaluated dressings applied to venous leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy identified 254 studies; 42 of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloids were no more effective than simple low adherent dressings used beneath compression (eight trials; relative risk for healing with hydrocolloid 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). For other comparisons, insufficient evidence was available to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. None of the dressing comparisons showed evidence that a particular class of dressing healed more ulcers. Some differences existed between dressings in terms of subjective outcome measures and ulcer healing rates. The results were not affected by the size or quality of trials or the unit of randomisation. Insufficient data were available to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative cost effectiveness of different dressings.ConclusionsThe type of dressing applied beneath compression was not shown to affect ulcer healing. The results of the meta-analysis showed that applying hydrocolloid dressings beneath compression produced no benefit in terms of ulcer healing compared with applying simple low adherent dressings. No conclusive recommendations can be made as to which type of dressing is most cost effective. Decisions on which dressing to apply should be based on the local costs of dressings and the preferences of the practitioner or patient.

Project description:BackgroundHome-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.PatientsAdult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.MeasurementsWe analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.MethodsRandom effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsTwenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.LimitationsLack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.

Dataset Information

Necessity of heparin for maintaining peripheral venous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets