Inglis G D T, Davies M W
McMaster University, Department of Pediatrics, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;2005(4):CD005251. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005251.pub2.
Umbilical venous catheters are often used in unwell neonates. Infection related to the use of these catheters may cause significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has been advocated for newborns with umbilical venous catheters in order to reduce the risk of colonisation and acquired infection. Countering this is the possibility that harm may outweigh benefit. Prophylactic antibiotics may be effective in preventing catheter-related blood stream infection, but may have the undesirable effect of promoting the emergence of resistant strains of micro-organisms. A policy of prophylactic antibiotic use should take into account this possibility, and has been used as a basis for arguing against its implementation.
The primary objective was to assess whether prophylactic antibiotics, in neonates with umbilical venous catheters, reduce mortality and morbidity. In separate comparisons, we planned to review two different policies regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in neonates with umbilical venous catheters: 1) Among neonates with umbilical venous catheters, a policy of prophylactic antibiotics for the duration of catheterisation (or other fixed duration of antibiotic treatment) versus placebo or no treatment; 2) Among neonates with umbilical venous catheters who had been started on antibiotics at the time of catheterisation, but whose initial cultures to rule out sepsis are negative, a policy of continuing versus discontinuing prophylactic antibiotics.
We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2005), CINAHL (1982 to April 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005).
Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials in which newborn infants with umbilical venous catheters are randomised to receive prophylactic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment.
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality.
One study, of poor quality, met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Twenty-nine term infants, who had umbilical venous catheters inserted specifically for transfusion procedures for hyperbilirubinaemia or polycythaemia, allocated non-randomly (quasi-randomised - alternate allocation) to treatment (n = 15) or control (n = 14) groups. Those in the treatment group received penicillin and gentamicin for three days. 5/15 infants given antibiotics and 5/14 control infants having positive blood cultures three days after catheter insertion. All positive blood cultures were considered contaminated, due to lack of corroborating clinical and haematological evidence of infection. Therefore, no infants were identified with evidence of septicaemia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics when umbilical venous catheters are inserted in newborn infants. There is no evidence to support or refute continuing antibiotics once initial cultures rule out infection in newborn infants with umbilical venous catheters.
脐静脉导管常用于患病新生儿。与这些导管使用相关的感染可能导致严重的发病和死亡。为降低定植和获得性感染风险,有人主张对使用脐静脉导管的新生儿使用预防性抗生素。然而,存在危害可能超过益处的可能性。预防性抗生素可能有效预防导管相关血流感染,但可能产生促进微生物耐药菌株出现的不良影响。预防性抗生素使用政策应考虑到这种可能性,并已被用作反对实施该政策的依据。
主要目的是评估预防性抗生素对使用脐静脉导管的新生儿的死亡率和发病率的影响。在单独的比较中,我们计划审查关于使用脐静脉导管的新生儿预防性使用抗生素的两种不同政策:1)在使用脐静脉导管的新生儿中,导管留置期间(或其他固定抗生素治疗时长)使用预防性抗生素与使用安慰剂或不治疗的政策;2)在导管插入时已开始使用抗生素但排除败血症的初始培养结果为阴性的使用脐静脉导管的新生儿中,继续或停止预防性抗生素使用的政策。
我们检索了MEDLINE(1966年1月至2005年4月)、CINAHL(1982年至2005年4月)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL,Cochrane图书馆,2005年第1期)。
随机对照试验或半随机试验,其中将使用脐静脉导管的新生儿随机分组接受预防性抗生素、安慰剂或不治疗。
两名评价员独立评估试验质量。
一项质量较差的研究符合本综述的纳入标准。29名足月儿专门为高胆红素血症或红细胞增多症的输血程序插入了脐静脉导管,通过非随机分配(半随机——交替分配)分为治疗组(n = 15)和对照组(n = 14)。治疗组的婴儿接受青霉素和庆大霉素治疗三天。导管插入三天后,5/15接受抗生素治疗的婴儿和5/14对照组婴儿血培养呈阳性。由于缺乏感染的确证临床和血液学证据,所有阳性血培养均被视为污染。因此,未发现有败血症证据的婴儿。
随机试验中没有足够证据支持或反驳在新生儿插入脐静脉导管时使用预防性抗生素。对于初始培养排除感染的使用脐静脉导管的新生儿,没有证据支持或反驳继续使用抗生素。