Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2012 Aug;40(8):2479-85. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318255d9bc.
Catheter-related bloodstream infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Current guidelines recommend that femoral venous access should be avoided to reduce this complication (1A recommendation). However, the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections from femoral as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheterization has not been systematically reviewed.
A systematic review of the literature to determine the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections related to nontunneled central venous catheters inserted at the femoral site as compared to subclavian and internal jugular placement.
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, and an Internet search (Google).
Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that reported the frequency of catheter-related bloodstream infections (infections per 1,000 catheter days) in patients with nontunneled central venous catheters placed in the femoral site as compared to subclavian or internal jugular placement.
Data were abstracted on study design, study size, study setting, patient population, number of catheters at each insertion site, number of catheter-related bloodstream infections, and the prevalence of deep venous thrombosis. Studies were subgrouped according to study design (cohort and randomized controlled trials). Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the data.
Two randomized controlled trials (1006 catheters) and 8 cohort (16,370 catheters) studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Three thousand two hundred thirty catheters were placed in the subclavian vein, 10,958 in the internal jugular and 3,188 in the femoral vein for a total of 113,652 catheter days. The average catheter-related bloodstream infections density was 2.5 per 1,000 catheter days (range 0.6-7.2). There was no significant difference in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and subclavian/internal jugular sites in the two randomized controlled trials (i.e., no level 1A evidence). There was no significant difference in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and subclavian sites. The internal jugular site was associated with a significantly lower risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections compared to the femoral site (risk ratio 1.90; 95% confidence interval 1.21-2.97, p=.005, I²=35%). This difference was explained by two of the studies that were statistical outliers. When these two studies were removed from the analysis there was no significant difference in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the femoral and internal jugular sites (risk ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.19, p=0.2, I=0%). Meta-regression demonstrated a significant interaction between the risk of infection and the year of publication (p=.01), with the femoral site demonstrating a higher risk of infection in the earlier studies. There was no significant difference in the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection between the subclavian and internal jugular sites. The risk of deep venous thrombosis was assessed in the two randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis of this data demonstrates that there was no difference in the risk of deep venous thrombosis when the femoral site was compared to the subclavian and internal jugular sites combined. There was, however, significant heterogeneity between studies.
Although earlier studies showed a lower risk of catheter-related bloodstream infections when the internal jugular was compared to the femoral site, recent studies show no difference in the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections between the three sites.
导管相关血流感染是住院患者发病率和死亡率的一个重要原因。目前的指南建议避免股静脉入路,以降低这种并发症(1A 推荐)。然而,股静脉与锁骨下静脉和颈内静脉置管相比,导管相关血流感染的风险尚未得到系统评价。
系统评价文献,以确定股静脉与锁骨下和颈内静脉置管相比,非隧道中央静脉导管相关血流感染的风险。
MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验注册库、相关原始和综述文章的引文回顾以及互联网搜索(Google)。
报告股静脉与锁骨下或颈内静脉置管相比,非隧道中央静脉导管相关血流感染(每 1000 个导管日感染率)的随机对照试验和队列研究。
对研究设计、研究规模、研究环境、患者人群、每个置管部位的导管数量、导管相关血流感染数量以及深静脉血栓形成的发生率进行数据摘要。根据研究设计(队列和随机对照试验)对研究进行亚组分析。使用荟萃分析技术对数据进行总结。
有 2 项随机对照试验(1006 个导管)和 8 项队列研究(16370 个导管)符合本系统评价的纳入标准。3238 个导管置于锁骨下静脉,10958 个导管置于颈内静脉,3188 个导管置于股静脉,共 113652 个导管日。平均导管相关血流感染密度为每 1000 个导管日 2.5 个(范围 0.6-7.2)。在两项随机对照试验中,股静脉与锁骨下/颈内静脉部位之间的导管相关血流感染风险无显著差异(即无 1A 级证据)。股静脉与锁骨下部位之间的导管相关血流感染风险无显著差异。颈内静脉部位与股静脉部位相比,导管相关血流感染的风险显著降低(风险比 1.90;95%置信区间 1.21-2.97,p=.005,I²=35%)。这一差异由两项研究的统计异常值解释。当从分析中排除这两项研究时,股静脉与颈内静脉部位之间导管相关血流感染的风险无显著差异(风险比 1.35;95%置信区间 0.84-2.19,p=0.2,I=0%)。Meta 回归显示感染风险与发表年份之间存在显著交互作用(p=.01),股静脉部位在早期研究中感染风险更高。股静脉与颈内静脉部位之间导管相关血流感染的风险无显著差异。在两项随机对照试验中评估了深静脉血栓形成的风险。对这部分数据的荟萃分析表明,与锁骨下和颈内静脉部位相比,股静脉部位的深静脉血栓形成风险没有差异。然而,研究之间存在显著的异质性。
尽管早期研究表明颈内静脉与股静脉相比,导管相关血流感染的风险较低,但最近的研究表明,这三个部位之间导管相关血流感染的发生率没有差异。