Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): A Cochrane systematic review.
To compare the available dressing and securement devices for central venous access devices (CVADs).
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials.
Studies evaluated the effects of dressing and securement devices for CVADs. All types of CVADs were included. Outcome measures were CVAD-related bloodstream infection, CVAD tip colonisation, entry and exit site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed CVAD securement, dressing condition and mortality. We used standard methodological approaches as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
We included 22 studies involving 7436 participants comparing nine different types of securement device or dressing. All included studies were at unclear or high risk of performance bias due to the different appearances of the dressings and securement devices. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the rate of CVAD-related bloodstream infection between securement with gauze and tape and standard polyurethane (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.63, low quality evidence), or between chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings and standard polyurethane (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence). There is high quality evidence that medication-impregnated dressings reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93). There is moderate quality evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings reduce the frequency of CVAD-related bloodstream infection per 1000 patient days compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78). There is moderate quality evidence that catheter tip colonisation is reduced with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings compared with standard polyurethane dressings (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73), but the relative effects of gauze and tape and standard polyurethane are unclear (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.77, very low quality evidence).
Medication-impregnated dressing products reduce the incidence of CVAD-related bloodstream infection relative to all other dressing types. There is some evidence that chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings, relative to standard polyurethane dressings, reduce CVAD-related bloodstream infection for the outcomes of frequency of infection per 1000 patient days, risk of catheter tip colonisation and possibly risk of CVAD-related bloodstream infection. Most studies were conducted in intensive care unit settings. More, high quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of dressing and securement products for CVADs.
Ullman AJ
，Cooke ML
，Mitchell M
，Lin F
，New K
，Long DA
，Mihala G
，Rickard CM
... -
《-》
The effectiveness of dressings and securement devices to prevent central venous catheter-associated complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Central venous catheters are commonly used in healthcare, but they come with a range of potential complications. Over the last 15 years, an influx of securement and dressing products has been released, with unknown overall effectiveness to prevent these complications.
To compare the effects of dressings and securement devices for central venous catheters on a range of common complications including catheter-related bloodstream infection, catheter tip colonisation, entry/exit-site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed catheter securement, dressing durability and mortality.
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Following standard Cochrane methods, a systematic search of Cochrane Wounds Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, EBSCO CINAHL, and multiple clinical trial registries was completed in November 2022. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of dressing and securement devices for all CVC types were included. A random-effects model was used during the meta-analysis. Results were expressed using risk ratio (RR), rate ratio, or mean difference (MD), with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Methodological quality and bias were assessed.
We included 46 studies involving 10,054 participants. All studies had either an unclear or high-performance bias. The blinding of outcome assessment was unclear in most studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings, compared with standard polyurethane dressings, may reduce the incidence (7 studies; N = 5816; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.44-0.83; low certainty evidence) and rate (4 studies; N = 4447; RR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.32-0.79; moderate certainty evidence) of catheter-related bloodstream infection and catheter tip colonisation (8 studies; N = 4788; RR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.52-0.95; very low certainty evidence). Medication-impregnated dressings may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (6 studies; N = 5687; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.93; low certainty evidence) and catheter-tip colonisation (7 studies; N = 4769; RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.47-0.76; low certainty evidence) relative to non-impregnated dressing types. Tissue adhesive may increase the risk of skin irritation or damage compared with integrated securement dressings (3 studies; N = 166; RR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.09-3.24; low certainty evidence) or sutureless securement devices (4 studies; N = 241; RR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.10-2.44; moderate certainty evidence). Tissue adhesive increased dressing durability compared with integrated securement dressings (MD 43.03 h, 95 % CI 4.88-81.18; moderate certainty evidence) and sutureless securement devices (MD 42.90 h, 4.64-81.16; moderate certainty evidence). Tissue adhesive increased failed catheter securement rate compared with suture (2 studies; N = 103; RR 9.33, 95 % CI 1.10-79.21; moderate certainty evidence).
The findings of the review provide insights and guidance for clinicians in selecting the appropriate dressings and securements for catheters. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in catheters and patient types.
#CD010367.
Time to implement chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressings to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections; a meta-analysis by @GraceNP and team.
Xu H
，Hyun A
，Mihala G
，Rickard CM
，Cooke ML
，Lin F
，Mitchell M
，Ullman AJ
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
