Rosenthal Victor Daniel
International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
J Vasc Access. 2020 Nov;21(6):847-853. doi: 10.1177/1129729820904904. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
The objective of this systematic review is to analyze types of needle-free connectors and open systems and their effects on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates and other adverse outcomes through a research protocol consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews' recommendations. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases of systematic reviews were searched for relevant comparative studies published from January 2000 to September 2017. Eighteen studies compared central line-associated bloodstream infection (according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network definition), internal microbial contamination, occlusions, phlebitis, and other outcomes associated with needle-free connectors with a positive displacement device, negative displacement device, neutral displacement device, or three-way stopcock. Ten studies reported central line-associated bloodstream infection rates, which were lower with positive displacement devices versus negative displacement devices/neutral displacement devices (one study) and with negative displacement devices versus three-way stopcocks (three studies), but varied with different positive displacement device and negative displacement device/neutral displacement device designs (four studies). Seven studies reported internal microbial contamination rates, which were higher with three-way stopcocks versus negative displacement devices (two studies) and positive displacement devices (two studies), lower when positive displacement devices were used versus neutral displacement devices (one study), and varied with different types of negative displacement device (one study). Central line-associated bloodstream infection rates and most other outcomes analyzed were statistically significantly higher with three-way stopcocks (open devices) versus positive displacement device, negative displacement devices, and neutral displacement devices, but varied among closed device designs.
本系统评价的目的是通过一项符合《系统评价优先报告项目》建议的研究方案,分析无针连接器和开放系统的类型及其对中心静脉导管相关血流感染率和其他不良结局的影响。检索了MEDLINE和Cochrane系统评价数据库,以查找2000年1月至2017年9月发表的相关比较研究。18项研究比较了中心静脉导管相关血流感染(根据疾病控制和预防中心/国家医疗安全网络的定义)、内部微生物污染、堵塞、静脉炎以及与具有正压置换装置、负压置换装置、中性置换装置或三通旋塞的无针连接器相关的其他结局。10项研究报告了中心静脉导管相关血流感染率,正压置换装置的感染率低于负压置换装置/中性置换装置(1项研究),负压置换装置的感染率低于三通旋塞(3项研究),但不同正压置换装置和负压置换装置/中性置换装置设计的感染率有所不同(4项研究)。7项研究报告了内部微生物污染率,三通旋塞的污染率高于负压置换装置(2项研究)和正压置换装置(2项研究),使用正压置换装置时的污染率低于中性置换装置(1项研究),且不同类型负压置换装置的污染率有所不同(1项研究)。与正压置换装置、负压置换装置和中性置换装置相比,三通旋塞(开放装置)的中心静脉导管相关血流感染率和大多数其他分析结局在统计学上显著更高,但在封闭装置设计之间有所不同。