Suppr超能文献

单腔与多腔中心静脉导管的感染率:一项荟萃分析。

Rates of infection for single-lumen versus multilumen central venous catheters: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Dezfulian Cameron, Lavelle James, Nallamothu Brahmajee K, Kaufman Samuel R, Saint Sanjay

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2003 Sep;31(9):2385-90. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000084843.31852.01.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Since the introduction of multilumen central venous catheters two decades ago, there has been controversy whether the additional lumens place patients with these catheters at higher risk for infection. Our objective was to determine the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and catheter colonization in multilumen catheters compared with single-lumen catheters.

DATA SOURCE

Studies were identified by a computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents, and PREMEDLINE databases and by review of bibliographies and expert consultation. Studies comparing the prevalence of CRBSI or catheter colonization among single-, double-, and triple-lumen central venous catheters were included. We excluded studies if they included central venous catheters that were long-term, cuffed, tunneled, or coated with antibiotic or antiseptic agents.

DATA ABSTRACTION

Two independent reviewers abstracted data on: 1) risk factors for CRBSI and colonization, 2) outcome definitions used, 3) the absolute prevalence of CRBSI and catheter colonization, and 4) study design and quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 15 studies met inclusion criteria. Summary odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model. Although CRBSI was more common in multilumen catheters (summary odds ratios, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-4.66), catheter colonization was not (summary odds ratios, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-3.47). Tests for heterogeneity, however, suggested substantial variation by study. When only studies of higher quality were included, multilumen catheters were found not to be associated with a significant increase in CRBSI prevalence (summary odds ratios, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-3.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Multilumen central venous catheters may be associated with a slightly higher risk of infection when compared with single-lumen catheters; however, this relationship diminishes when only high-quality studies that control for patient differences are considered. The slight increase in infectious risk when using multilumen catheters is likely offset by their improved convenience, thereby justifying the continued use of multilumen vascular catheters.

摘要

目的

自二十年前多腔中心静脉导管问世以来,对于这些导管额外的腔是否会使患者面临更高的感染风险一直存在争议。我们的目的是确定与单腔导管相比,多腔导管发生导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)和导管定植的风险。

数据来源

通过对MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、《现刊目次》和PREMEDLINE数据库进行计算机检索,并查阅参考文献及咨询专家来确定研究。纳入比较单腔、双腔和三腔中心静脉导管中CRBSI或导管定植发生率的研究。如果研究纳入了长期、带袖套、隧道式或涂有抗生素或防腐剂的中心静脉导管,则将其排除。

数据提取

两名独立的评审员提取了以下数据:1)CRBSI和定植的危险因素;2)所使用的结果定义;3)CRBSI和导管定植的绝对发生率;4)研究设计和质量。

数据综合

共有15项研究符合纳入标准。使用随机效应模型计算汇总比值比。尽管CRBSI在多腔导管中更常见(汇总比值比为2.15;95%置信区间为1.00 - 4.66),但导管定植并非如此(汇总比值比为1.78;95%置信区间为0.92 - 3.47)。然而,异质性检验表明各研究间存在显著差异。当仅纳入高质量研究时,发现多腔导管与CRBSI发生率的显著增加无关(汇总比值比为1.30;95%置信区间为0.50 - 3.41)。

结论

与单腔导管相比,多腔中心静脉导管可能与略高的感染风险相关;然而,当仅考虑控制患者差异的高质量研究时,这种关系会减弱。使用多腔导管时感染风险的轻微增加可能会被其提高的便利性所抵消,从而证明多腔血管导管的持续使用是合理的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验