Barbara S Niël-Weise1, Theo Stijnen, Peterhans J van den Broek. 1. MD (B), Dutch Working Party on Infection Prevention, Leiden University Medical Center, C7-130, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. B.S.Niel-Weise@lumc.n
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, we assessed the effect of in-line filters on infusion-related phlebitis associated with peripheral IV catheters. The study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register up to August 10, 2009. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data on phlebitis were combined when appropriate, using a random-effects model. The impact of the risk of phlebitis in the control group (baseline risk) on the effect of in-line filters was studied by using meta-regression based on the bivariate meta-analysis model. The quality of the evidence was determined by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method. RESULTS: Eleven trials (1633 peripheral catheters) were included in this review to compare the effect of in-line filters on the incidence of phlebitis in hospitalized patients. Baseline risks across trials ranged from 23% to 96%. Meta-analysis of all trials showed that in-line filters reduced the risk of infusion-related phlebitis (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.00). This benefit, however, is very uncertain, because the trials had serious methodological shortcomings and meta-analysis revealed marked unexplained statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0000, I(2) = 90.4%). The estimated benefit did not depend on baseline risk. CONCLUSION: In-line filters in peripheral IV catheters cannot be recommended routinely, because evidence of their benefit is uncertain.
BACKGROUND: In this systematic review, we assessed the effect of in-line filters on infusion-related phlebitis associated with peripheral IV catheters. The study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We used MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register up to August 10, 2009. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data on phlebitis were combined when appropriate, using a random-effects model. The impact of the risk of phlebitis in the control group (baseline risk) on the effect of in-line filters was studied by using meta-regression based on the bivariate meta-analysis model. The quality of the evidence was determined by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) method. RESULTS: Eleven trials (1633 peripheral catheters) were included in this review to compare the effect of in-line filters on the incidence of phlebitis in hospitalized patients. Baseline risks across trials ranged from 23% to 96%. Meta-analysis of all trials showed that in-line filters reduced the risk of infusion-related phlebitis (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.00). This benefit, however, is very uncertain, because the trials had serious methodological shortcomings and meta-analysis revealed marked unexplained statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0000, I(2) = 90.4%). The estimated benefit did not depend on baseline risk. CONCLUSION: In-line filters in peripheral IV catheters cannot be recommended routinely, because evidence of their benefit is uncertain.