Zhang Jun, Wang Bo, Li Rongke, Ge Long, Chen Kee-Hsin, Tian Jinhui
School of Nursing, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, No. 35, Dingxi East Road, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Department of Nursing, Rehabilitation Hospital of Gansu Province, No. 53, Dingxi Road, Chengguan District, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu Province, China.
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Apr;49(4):701-716. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1490-x. Epub 2016 Dec 29.
The purpose of our study is to carry out a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of different antimicrobial lock solutions (ALS) for prevention of catheter-related infections (CRI) in patients with hemodialysis (HD) and ranking these ALS for practical consideration.
We searched six electronic databases, earlier relevant meta-analysis and reference lists of included studies for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ALS for preventing episodes of CRI in patients with HD either head-to-head or against control interventions using non-ALS. Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and extracted relevant information according to a predesigned extraction form. Data were analysed using the WinBUGS (V.1.4.3) and the Stata (V.13.0).
Finally, 18 studies involving 2395 patients and evaluating 9 ALS strategies were included. Network meta-analysis showed that gentamicin plus citrate (OR 0.07, 95% CrI 0.00-0.48) and gentamicin plus heparin (OR 0.04, 95% CrI 0.00-0.23) were statistically superior to heparin alone in terms of reducing CRBSI. For exit site infection and all-cause mortality, no significant difference in the intervention effect (p > 0.05) was detected for all included ALS when compared to heparin. Moreover, all ALS were similar in efficacy (p > 0.05) from each other for CRBSI, exit site infection and all-cause mortality.
Our findings indicated that gentamicin plus heparin may be selected for the prophylaxis of CRI in patients undergoing HD with CVCs. Whether this strategy will lead to antimicrobial resistance remains unclear in view of the relatively short duration of included studies. More attentions should be made regarding head-to-head comparisons of the most commonly used ALS in this field.
我们研究的目的是进行一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,比较不同抗菌封管溶液(ALS)预防血液透析(HD)患者导管相关感染(CRI)的疗效,并对这些ALS进行排序以供实际参考。
我们检索了六个电子数据库、早期相关的荟萃分析以及纳入研究的参考文献列表,以查找比较ALS预防HD患者CRI发作的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验采用直接比较或与使用非ALS的对照干预措施进行比较。两位作者使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具独立评估纳入研究的方法学质量,并根据预先设计的提取表提取相关信息。使用WinBUGS(V.1.4.3)和Stata(V.13.0)进行数据分析。
最终,纳入了18项涉及2395例患者并评估9种ALS策略的研究。网络荟萃分析表明,庆大霉素加柠檬酸盐(OR 0.07,95% CrI 0.00 - 0.48)和庆大霉素加肝素(OR 0.04,95% CrI 0.00 - 0.23)在降低CRBSI方面在统计学上优于单独使用肝素。对于出口部位感染和全因死亡率,与肝素相比,所有纳入的ALS在干预效果上均未检测到显著差异(p > 0.05)。此外,对于CRBSI、出口部位感染和全因死亡率,所有ALS之间的疗效相似(p > 0.05)。
我们的研究结果表明,对于接受中心静脉导管(CVC)的HD患者,可选择庆大霉素加肝素预防CRI。鉴于纳入研究的持续时间相对较短,该策略是否会导致抗菌药物耐药性尚不清楚。对于该领域最常用的ALS的直接比较应给予更多关注。