BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the management of newborn infants with a bloodstream infection and a central venous catheter in place. The central venous catheter may act as a nidus for infecting organisms and observational studies have suggested that early removal of the catheter is associated with a lower incidence of persistent or complicated infection. However, since central venous catheters provide secure vascular access to deliver nutrition and medications, the possible harms of early removal versus expectant management also need to be considered. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters on morbidity and mortality in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to October 2015), CINAHL (1982 to October 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no trial data to guide practice regarding early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in newborn infants with bloodstream infections. A simple and pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to resolve the uncertainty about optimal management in this common and important clinical scenario.
Authors: Shoo K Lee; Khalid Aziz; Nalini Singhal; Catherine M Cronin; Andrew James; David S C Lee; Derek Matthew; Arne Ohlsson; Koravangattu Sankaran; Mary Seshia; Anne Synnes; Robin Walker; Robin Whyte; Joanne Langley; Ying C MacNab; Bonnie Stevens; Peter von Dadelszen Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Minesh Khashu; Horacio Osiovich; Deborah Henry; Aziz Al Khotani; Alfonso Solimano; David P Speert Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: L M Mahieu; J J De Dooy; A O De Muynck; G Van Melckebeke; M M Ieven; P J Van Reempts Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Dirk Bassler; Barbara J Stoll; Barbara Schmidt; Elizabeth V Asztalos; Robin S Roberts; Charlene M T Robertson; Reg S Sauve Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Barbara J Stoll; Nellie I Hansen; Ira Adams-Chapman; Avroy A Fanaroff; Susan R Hintz; Betty Vohr; Rosemary D Higgins Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Mark J Peters; Waleed Alhazzani; Michael S D Agus; Heidi R Flori; David P Inwald; Simon Nadel; Luregn J Schlapbach; Robert C Tasker; Andrew C Argent; Joe Brierley; Joseph Carcillo; Enitan D Carrol; Christopher L Carroll; Ira M Cheifetz; Karen Choong; Jeffry J Cies; Andrea T Cruz; Daniele De Luca; Akash Deep; Saul N Faust; Claudio Flauzino De Oliveira; Mark W Hall; Paul Ishimine; Etienne Javouhey; Koen F M Joosten; Poonam Joshi; Oliver Karam; Martin C J Kneyber; Joris Lemson; Graeme MacLaren; Nilesh M Mehta; Morten Hylander Møller; Christopher J L Newth; Trung C Nguyen; Akira Nishisaki; Mark E Nunnally; Margaret M Parker; Raina M Paul; Adrienne G Randolph; Suchitra Ranjit; Lewis H Romer; Halden F Scott; Lyvonne N Tume; Judy T Verger; Eric A Williams; Joshua Wolf; Hector R Wong; Jerry J Zimmerman; Niranjan Kissoon; Pierre Tissieres Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 17.440