Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23740696›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults.

Nai Ming Lai, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Nai An Lai, Elizabeth O'Riordan, Wilson Shu Cheng Pau, Sanjay Saint

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02645682 (The Effects of Anti-infective Central Venous Catheter), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02645682 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Anti-infective Central Venous Catheter(CVC) on Catheter-related Bloodstream Infection(CRBSI) in Critical Care Patients: a Multiple-center, Randomized, Control Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorWest China HospitalRan2016 to 2018Enrolled1,818ConditionsCritical IllnessArmsanti-infection CVC, normal CVC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Implantable Device-Related Infection.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2016
    Review
  12. Microbial Biofilms in Pulmonary and Critical Care Diseases.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Anti-biofilm Activity as a Health Issue.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nai Ming LaiDepartment of Paediatrics, Paediatric and Child Health Research Group, University of Malaya Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 50603.
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Nai An Lai
Elizabeth O'Riordan
Wilson Shu Cheng Pau
Sanjay Saint
Ann Arbor VA Medical Center · USHospital Tuanku Ja’afar · MYQueen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Malaya · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe central venous catheter (CVC) is a commonly used device in managing acutely ill patients in the hospital. Bloodstream infections are major complications in patients who require a CVC. Several infection control measures have been developed to reduce bloodstream infections, one of which is CVC impregnated with various forms of antimicrobials (either with an antiseptic or with antibiotics).

objectivesWe aimed to assess the effects of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing clinically diagnosed sepsis, established catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and mortality. SEARCH

methodsWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group (CARG). We searched MEDLINE (OVID SP) (1950 to March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to March 2012), CINAHL (1982 to March 2012) and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another impregnation. We excluded cross-over studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CARG. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data where appropriate with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN

resultsWe included 56 studies with 16,512 catheters and 11 types of antimicrobial impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide this information. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to different appearances between the catheters assessed. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced CRBSI, with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.73) and NNTB of 50. Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 10% (95% CI 13% to 7%), RR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) and NNTB of 10. However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.13)) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.05)).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied in studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) (RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.78)) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.11)) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (TPN)(RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.34)). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in improving such outcomes as CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits in catheter colonization varied according to the setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. Limited evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to significantly reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.

Indexed as

Central Venous CathetersAdultAnti-Infective AgentsCatheter-Related InfectionsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID23740696
OpenAlexW4249050182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.