Cochrane · systematic review · CD007878
Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter‐related infections in adults
Lai, NM, Chaiyakunapruk, N, Lai, NA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 3 · 50%High 3 · 50%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyImpregnated catheters versus non‐impregnated catheters for reducing the risk of central venous catheter‐related infections in adults
Population: adult patients who required central venous catheters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Identified by clinical, biochemical and/or microbiological methods Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 1 [0.88, 1.13] | 12 studies · 3686 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Catheter‐related blood stream infection (CRBSI) Identified by catheter culture and clinical features +/‐ haematological and biochemical parameters Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.62 [0.52, 0.74] | 42 studies · 10405 participants | High |
All‐cause mortality Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.92 [0.8, 1.07] | 10 studies · 2643 participants | High |
Catheter colonization Identified by catheter culture (microbiological methods) Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.67 [0.59, 0.76] | 43 studies · 9910 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Catheter‐related local infection Identified by catheter culture (microbiological methods) and clinical features Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.84 [0.66, 1.07] | 12 studies · 2688 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Adverse effects (combined) Identified by clinical assessment Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 1.09 [0.94, 1.27] | 10 studies · 3003 participants | High |
Impregnated catheters versus non‐impregnated catheters for reducing the risk of central venous catheter‐related infections in adults
Population: Adult patients who required central venous catheters
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinically‐diagnosed sepsis Clinical, biochemical and/or microbiological methods Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 1 [0.88, 1.13] | 12 studies · 3686 participants | Moderate Downgraded: publication bias |
Catheter‐related blood stream infection (CRBSI) Catheter culture and clinical features +/‐ haematological and biochemical parameters Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.61 [0.51, 0.73] | 41 studies · 10133 participants | High |
All‐cause mortality Clinical features Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.88 [0.75, 1.05] | 9 studies · 2371 participants | High |
Catheter colonization Catheter culture (microbiological methods) Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.66 [0.58, 0.75] | 42 studies · 9638 participants | High |
Catheter‐related local infection Catheter culture (microbiological methods) and clinical features Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 0.84 [0.66, 1.07] | 12 studies · 2688 participants | Moderate |
Adverse effects (combined) Clinical assessment Impregnated catheters vs non‐impregnated catheters | RR 1.09 [0.94, 1.27] | 10 studies · 3003 participants | High |