Webster Joan, Gillies Donna, O'Riordan Elizabeth, Sherriff Karen L, Rickard Claire M
Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Nov 9(11):CD003827. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003827.pub2.
Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate venous access, allowing the intravenous administration of complex drug treatments, blood products and nutritional support, without the trauma associated with repeated venepuncture. However, CVCs are associated with a risk of infection. Some studies have indicated that the type of dressing used with them may affect the risk of infection. Gauze and tape, transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm® and Opsite®, and highly vapour-permeable transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Opsite IV3000®, are the most common types of dressing used to secure CVCs. Currently, it is not clear which type of dressing is the most appropriate.
To compare gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane CVC dressings in terms of catheter-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised adults and children.
For this third update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (10 May 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, May 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 6 May 2011).
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of dressing type (e.g. gauze and tape versus transparent polyurethane dressings) on CVC-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised patients.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information.
Six studies were included in earlier versions of the review. In this update two of the previously included papers have been excluded and two new trials have been added. Of these six trials, four compared gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 337) and two compared different transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 126). Catheter-related bloodstream infection was higher in the transparent polyurethane group when compared with gauze and tape; OR 4.19 (95%CI 1.02 to 17.23) however these small trials were at risk of bias so this evidence is graded low quality. There was no evidence of a difference between highly permeable polyurethane dressings and other polyurethane dressings in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection (low quality evidence). No other significant differences were found.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found a four-fold increase in the rate of catheter related blood stream infection when a polyurethane dressing was used to secure the central venous catheter however this research was at risk of bias and the confidence intervals were wide indicating high uncertainty around this estimate; so the true effect could be as small as 2% or as high as 17-fold. More, better quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of gauze and tape versus polyurethane dressings for central venous catheter sites.
中心静脉导管(CVC)便于实现静脉通路,可进行复杂药物治疗、血液制品输注及营养支持的静脉给药,且无反复静脉穿刺带来的创伤。然而,CVC与感染风险相关。一些研究表明,与之配套使用的敷料类型可能会影响感染风险。纱布和胶带、透明聚氨酯薄膜敷料(如泰德 derm® 和 Opsite®)以及高透湿性透明聚氨酯薄膜敷料(如 Opsite IV3000®)是用于固定CVC的最常见敷料类型。目前,尚不清楚哪种敷料类型最为合适。
比较纱布和胶带与透明聚氨酯CVC敷料在住院成人和儿童的导管相关感染、导管固定安全性、对敷料材料的耐受性及敷料状况方面的差异。
对于本次第三次更新,我们检索了Cochrane伤口小组专业注册库(2011年5月10日);Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;Cochrane图书馆2011年第2期)、Ovid MEDLINE(1950年至2011年4月第4周);Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他非索引引文,2011年5月11日);Ovid EMBASE(1980年至2011年第18周);以及EBSCO CINAHL(1982年至2011年5月6日)。
所有评估敷料类型(如纱布和胶带与透明聚氨酯敷料对比)对住院患者CVC相关感染、导管固定安全性、对敷料材料的耐受性及敷料状况影响的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们联系研究作者获取缺失信息。
该综述早期版本纳入了6项研究。本次更新中,之前纳入的2篇论文被排除,新增了2项新试验。在这6项试验中,4项比较了纱布和胶带与透明聚氨酯敷料(总参与者 = 337),2项比较了不同的透明聚氨酯敷料(总参与者 = 126)。与纱布和胶带相比,透明聚氨酯组的导管相关血流感染发生率更高;比值比4.19(95%置信区间1.02至17.23),然而这些小型试验存在偏倚风险,因此该证据质量等级较低。在预防导管相关血流感染方面,没有证据表明高透性聚氨酯敷料与其他聚氨酯敷料之间存在差异(低质量证据)。未发现其他显著差异。
我们发现,使用聚氨酯敷料固定中心静脉导管时,导管相关血流感染率增加了四倍,但该研究存在偏倚风险,置信区间较宽,表明该估计值的不确定性较高;因此实际效果可能低至2%或高达17倍。对于中心静脉导管部位,在纱布和胶带与聚氨酯敷料的相对效果方面,需要更多、质量更高的研究。