中心静脉导管相关感染:比较超声引导和地标插入技术的系统综述、荟萃分析、试验序列分析和荟萃回归

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1186/s13054-024-05162-0
Nicolas Boulet, Joris Pensier, Bob-Valéry Occean, Pascale Fabbro Peray, Olivier Mimoz, Claire M. Rickard, Niccolò Buetti, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger
{"title":"中心静脉导管相关感染:比较超声引导和地标插入技术的系统综述、荟萃分析、试验序列分析和荟萃回归","authors":"Nicolas Boulet, Joris Pensier, Bob-Valéry Occean, Pascale Fabbro Peray, Olivier Mimoz, Claire M. Rickard, Niccolò Buetti, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger","doi":"10.1186/s13054-024-05162-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During central venous catheterization (CVC), ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to reduce mechanical complications and increase success rates compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) technique. However, the impact of US guidance on catheter-related infections remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of catheter-related infection with US-guided CVC versus AL technique. A systematic search on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing US-guided versus AL-guided CVC placement were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome including all types of catheter-related infection: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter colonization, or any other type of reported infection. The secondary outcomes included individual infection types and mortality at day-28. Subgroup analyses based on study type and operator experience were also performed. Pooling twelve studies (8 RCTs and 4 NRSI), with a total of 5,092 CVC procedures (2072 US-guided and 3020 AL-guided), US-guided CVC was associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related infections compared with the AL technique (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88). In the RCT subgroup, the pooled RR was 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87). This effect was more pronounced in procedures performed by experienced operators (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.89). In inexperienced operators, the infection risk reduction was not statistically significant. The pooled analysis of CRBSIs and CLABSIs also favored US guidance (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87). US-guided CVC placement significantly reduces the risk of catheter-related infections compared to the AL technique, particularly when performed by experienced operators. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350884. Registered 13 August 2022.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Central venous catheter-related infections: a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and meta-regression comparing ultrasound guidance and landmark technique for insertion\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Boulet, Joris Pensier, Bob-Valéry Occean, Pascale Fabbro Peray, Olivier Mimoz, Claire M. Rickard, Niccolò Buetti, Jean-Yves Lefrant, Laurent Muller, Claire Roger\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13054-024-05162-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During central venous catheterization (CVC), ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to reduce mechanical complications and increase success rates compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) technique. However, the impact of US guidance on catheter-related infections remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of catheter-related infection with US-guided CVC versus AL technique. A systematic search on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing US-guided versus AL-guided CVC placement were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome including all types of catheter-related infection: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter colonization, or any other type of reported infection. The secondary outcomes included individual infection types and mortality at day-28. Subgroup analyses based on study type and operator experience were also performed. Pooling twelve studies (8 RCTs and 4 NRSI), with a total of 5,092 CVC procedures (2072 US-guided and 3020 AL-guided), US-guided CVC was associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related infections compared with the AL technique (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88). In the RCT subgroup, the pooled RR was 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87). This effect was more pronounced in procedures performed by experienced operators (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.89). In inexperienced operators, the infection risk reduction was not statistically significant. The pooled analysis of CRBSIs and CLABSIs also favored US guidance (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87). US-guided CVC placement significantly reduces the risk of catheter-related infections compared to the AL technique, particularly when performed by experienced operators. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350884. Registered 13 August 2022.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05162-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05162-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在中心静脉导管插入术(CVC)中,与解剖标志(AL)技术相比,超声(US)引导可减少机械并发症并提高成功率。然而,超声引导对导管相关感染的影响仍存在争议。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较 US 引导 CVC 与 AL 技术的导管相关感染风险。截至 2024 年 7 月 31 日,我们在 MEDLINE、Cochrane 对照试验中央注册中心 (CENTRAL) 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行了系统检索。纳入了比较 US 引导与 AL 引导 CVC 置管术的随机对照试验 (RCT) 和非随机干预研究 (NRSI)。主要结果是包括所有导管相关感染类型的综合结果:导管相关血流感染(CRBSIs)、中心静脉相关血流感染(CLABSIs)、导管定植或任何其他类型的报告感染。次要结果包括个别感染类型和第 28 天的死亡率。还根据研究类型和操作者经验进行了分组分析。汇总了 12 项研究(8 项 RCT 和 4 项 NRSI),共进行了 5092 例 CVC 手术(2072 例 US 引导和 3020 例 AL 引导),与 AL 技术相比,US 引导 CVC 可显著减少导管相关感染(风险比 (RR) = 0.68,95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.53-0.88)。在 RCT 分组中,汇总的 RR 为 0.65(95% 置信区间为 0.49-0.87)。这一效应在由经验丰富的操作者实施的手术中更为明显(RR = 0.60,95% CI 0.41-0.89)。对于缺乏经验的操作者,感染风险的降低并无统计学意义。对 CRBSIs 和 CLABSIs 的汇总分析也显示 US 引导更有效(RR = 0.65,95% CI 0.48-0.87)。与AL技术相比,US引导下的CVC置管可显著降低导管相关感染的风险,尤其是由经验丰富的操作者进行置管。试验注册号:PROSPERO CRD42022350884。注册日期:2022 年 8 月 13 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Central venous catheter-related infections: a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and meta-regression comparing ultrasound guidance and landmark technique for insertion
During central venous catheterization (CVC), ultrasound (US) guidance has been shown to reduce mechanical complications and increase success rates compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) technique. However, the impact of US guidance on catheter-related infections remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the risk of catheter-related infection with US-guided CVC versus AL technique. A systematic search on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases was conducted until July 31, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of intervention (NRSI) comparing US-guided versus AL-guided CVC placement were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome including all types of catheter-related infection: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter colonization, or any other type of reported infection. The secondary outcomes included individual infection types and mortality at day-28. Subgroup analyses based on study type and operator experience were also performed. Pooling twelve studies (8 RCTs and 4 NRSI), with a total of 5,092 CVC procedures (2072 US-guided and 3020 AL-guided), US-guided CVC was associated with a significant reduction in catheter-related infections compared with the AL technique (risk ratio (RR) = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53–0.88). In the RCT subgroup, the pooled RR was 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87). This effect was more pronounced in procedures performed by experienced operators (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.89). In inexperienced operators, the infection risk reduction was not statistically significant. The pooled analysis of CRBSIs and CLABSIs also favored US guidance (RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.87). US-guided CVC placement significantly reduces the risk of catheter-related infections compared to the AL technique, particularly when performed by experienced operators. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022350884. Registered 13 August 2022.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
期刊最新文献
D-PRISM: a global survey-based study to assess diagnostic and treatment approaches in pneumonia managed in intensive care Evaluation of severe rhabdomyolysis on day 30 mortality in trauma patients admitted to intensive care: a propensity score analysis of the Traumabase registry Do prolonged infusions of β-lactam antibiotics improve outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis? It is time to say yes New definition of AKI: shifting the focus beyond mortality Three-year mortality of ICU survivors with sepsis, an infection or an inflammatory illness: an individually matched cohort study of ICU patients in the Netherlands from 2007 to 2019
×
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:481959085
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