Guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheterization in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Guo Ling, Wang Zhiwen, W. Guorong, Shang Shaomei, Wu Xue
{"title":"Guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheterization in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Guo Ling, Wang Zhiwen, W. Guorong, Shang Shaomei, Wu Xue","doi":"10.1177/1129729819868044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheter placement in adults. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched the main electronic databases (Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang) with articles published from inception up to March 2018. References of important articles were also screened for relevant studies. We used a structured search strategy and did not apply any search limitations. Review methods: Randomized, controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies or studies using a within-subject design, evaluating guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheter placement in adults, were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Results: In total, six studies with a total of 2176 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy of tip location placement between guide wire and liquid electrodes. Use of guide wire electrode had a higher risk of complications which were transient and there were an insufficient number of studies using the same parameters to evaluate intravascular electrocardiography signal quality. Conclusion: Due to the small number and low quality of identified studies, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the relative effectiveness and safety of guide wire versus liquid electrodes for the placement of central venous catheters in adults. More well-designed studies are needed in the future.","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":"1 1","pages":"564 - 572"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729819868044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheter placement in adults. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: We searched the main electronic databases (Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang) with articles published from inception up to March 2018. References of important articles were also screened for relevant studies. We used a structured search strategy and did not apply any search limitations. Review methods: Randomized, controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies or studies using a within-subject design, evaluating guide wire electrode versus liquid electrode for intravascular electrocardiography–guided central venous catheter placement in adults, were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Results: In total, six studies with a total of 2176 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in accuracy of tip location placement between guide wire and liquid electrodes. Use of guide wire electrode had a higher risk of complications which were transient and there were an insufficient number of studies using the same parameters to evaluate intravascular electrocardiography signal quality. Conclusion: Due to the small number and low quality of identified studies, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the relative effectiveness and safety of guide wire versus liquid electrodes for the placement of central venous catheters in adults. More well-designed studies are needed in the future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人血管内心电图引导中心静脉置管的导丝电极与液体电极:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目的:评价导丝电极与液体电极在成人血管内心电图引导中心静脉置管中的有效性和安全性。设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。数据来源:我们检索了主要电子数据库(Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute Library, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL,中国知识基础设施和万方),检索了从成立到2018年3月发表的文章。筛选重要文献的参考文献进行相关研究。我们使用了结构化的搜索策略,没有使用任何搜索限制。综述方法:随机、对照试验、准实验研究或采用受试者内设计的研究,评估导丝电极与液体电极在成人血管内心电图引导中心静脉导管放置中的作用,符合纳入条件。偏倚风险评估采用Cochrane协作工具,meta分析采用RevMan 5.3。结果:共纳入6项研究,共纳入2176名受试者。meta分析显示,导丝与液体电极在针尖位置放置精度上无统计学差异。使用导丝电极有较高的并发症风险,这些并发症是短暂的,并且使用相同参数评估血管内心电图信号质量的研究数量不足。结论:由于小数量和低质量的识别研究,很难得出明确的结论相对有效性和安全性的准绳和液体电极位置的中心静脉导管的成年人。未来需要更多精心设计的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
期刊最新文献
Care Bundles and Peripheral Arterial Catheters: A Scoping Review The Difference between Quality Improvement and Human Subject Research: Foundational Support Unsafe: Sutures as an Unnecessary Risk for Clinicians and Patients: Editor’s Message President’s Message 2022 Association for Vascular Access Scientific Meeting: Poster Abstracts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1