Cook D, Randolph A, Kernerman P, Cupido C, King D, Soukup C, Brun-Buisson C
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 1997 Aug;25(8):1417-24. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199708000-00033.
To evaluate the effect of guidewire exchange and new-site replacement strategies on the frequency of catheter colonization and infection, catheter-related bacteremia, and mechanical complications in critically ill patients.
We searched for published and unpublished research by means of MEDLINE and Science Citation Index, manual searching of Index Medicus, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, review of personal files, and contact with primary investigators.
From a pool of 151 randomized, controlled trials on central venous catheter management, we identified 12 relevant randomized trials of catheter replacement over a guidewire or at a new site.
In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data on the population, intervention, outcome, and methodologic quality.
As compared with new-site replacement, guidewire exchange is associated with a trend toward a higher rate of catheter colonization (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.84), regardless of whether patients had a suspected infection. Guidewire exchange is also associated with trends toward a higher rate of catheter exit-site infection (relative risk 1.52, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 6.73) and catheter-related bacteremia (relative risk 1.72, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 3.33). However, guidewire exchange is associated with fewer mechanical complications (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 1.91) relative to new-site replacement. Exchanging catheters over guidewires or at new sites every 3 days is not beneficial in reducing infections, compared with catheter replacement on an as-needed basis.
Guidewire exchange of central venous catheters may be associated with a greater risk of catheter-related infection but fewer mechanical complications than new-site replacement. More studies on scheduled vs. as-needed replacement strategies using both techniques are warranted. If guidewire exchange is used, meticulous aseptic technique is necessary.
评估导丝交换和新部位更换策略对重症患者导管定植和感染频率、导管相关菌血症及机械并发症的影响。
我们通过MEDLINE和科学引文索引检索已发表和未发表的研究,人工检索《医学索引》,对相关原始文献和综述文章进行引文回顾,查阅个人档案,并与主要研究者联系。
从151项关于中心静脉导管管理的随机对照试验中,我们确定了12项关于通过导丝或在新部位更换导管的相关随机试验。
我们两人独立且重复地提取了关于研究对象、干预措施、结局和方法学质量的数据。
与新部位更换相比,无论患者是否有疑似感染,导丝交换与导管定植率较高的趋势相关(相对危险度1.26,95%置信区间0.87至1.84)。导丝交换还与导管出口部位感染率较高(相对危险度1.52,95%置信区间0.34至6.73)和导管相关菌血症率较高(相对危险度1.72,95%置信区间0.89至3.33)的趋势相关。然而,相对于新部位更换,导丝交换相关的机械并发症较少(相对危险度0.48,95%置信区间0.12至1.91)。与按需更换导管相比,每3天通过导丝或在新部位更换导管对减少感染并无益处。
中心静脉导管的导丝交换可能比新部位更换与更高的导管相关感染风险相关,但机械并发症较少。有必要开展更多关于使用这两种技术的定期更换与按需更换策略的研究。如果使用导丝交换,必须采用严格的无菌技术。