Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
J Crit Care. 2013 Jun;28(3):316.e9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Sep 13.
The aim of this study was to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonpharmacologic interventions for prevention of catheter-related thromboses (CRTs).
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for RCTs examining any nonpharmacologic intervention to prevent symptomatic or asymptomatic CRT. Titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer, followed by full-text screening by 2 independent reviewers. Data were extracted and quality assessed by a single analyst and audited by a second analyst. Strength of the evidence for each intervention was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
Ten RCTs enrolling 1,378 patients were included. Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggested peripherally inserted central catheters and insertion of central venous catheters (CVCs) at the femoral site increased CRT when compared with other catheter types or insertion sites, respectively. Evidence comparing CRT in CVCs inserted at the jugular vs the subclavian site as well as the placement of the CVC tip was of low quality and inconclusive. Low-quality evidence suggested that valved ports and silver-coated catheters had no effect on CRT. No RCT evidence was identified for other interventions.
Peripherally inserted central catheters and femoral insertion of CVCs should be avoided if possible. Randomized controlled trials are needed to ascertain the effects of other nonpharmacologic interventions to prevent CRT.
本研究旨在总结预防导管相关性血栓形成(CRTs)的非药物干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。
系统检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库,以查找研究任何非药物干预措施预防有症状或无症状 CRT 的 RCT。由一名审查员筛选标题和摘要,然后由两名独立审查员进行全文筛选。由一名分析师提取数据并进行质量评估,并由第二名分析师审核。使用推荐评估、制定和评估(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation,GRADE)对每种干预措施的证据强度进行评估。
纳入了 10 项 RCT,共纳入了 1378 名患者。高质量证据表明,与其他导管类型或插入部位相比,外周插入中心导管和股静脉插入中心静脉导管(CVC)分别增加了 CRT。与颈内静脉 vs 锁骨下静脉插入 CVC 以及 CVC 尖端放置相比,关于 CVC 中 CRT 的证据质量较低且不确定。低质量证据表明,带瓣端口和镀银导管对 CRT 没有影响。没有 RCT 证据表明其他干预措施有效果。
如果可能,应避免使用外周插入中心导管和股静脉插入 CVC。需要进行随机对照试验来确定其他预防 CRT 的非药物干预措施的效果。