Meng Jiang1, Chang-Li Li2, Chun-Qiu Pan3, Li Yu4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China. jiangmenghust@163.com. 2. Department of Geratology, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western medicine, 11 Lingjiaohu Avenue, Wuhan, 430015, Hubei Province, China. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan Central Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide evidence-based guidance to better understand the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in cancer patients who received totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) compared with those who received external central venous catheters (CVCs). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out from inception through Oct 2018, with no language restrictions. Trials examining the risk of CLABSI in cancer patients who received TIVAPs compared with those who received external CVCs were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of each study. A random-effect model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: In all, 26 studies involving 27 cohorts and 5575 patients reporting the incidence of CLABSI in patients with TIVAPs compared with external CVCs were included. Pooled meta-analysis of these trials revealed that TIVAPs were associated with a significant lower risk of CLABSI than were external CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.62; P < 0.00001), which was confirmed by trial sequential analysis for the cumulative z curve entered the futility area. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in adult patients (RR [95% CI], 0.35 [0.22-0.56]) compared with pediatric patients who received TIVAPs (RR [95% CI], 0.55 [0.38-0.79]). CONCLUSIONS: TIVAP can significantly reduce the risk of CLABSI compared with external CVCs.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide evidence-based guidance to better understand the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) in cancer patients who received totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) compared with those who received external central venous catheters (CVCs). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out from inception through Oct 2018, with no language restrictions. Trials examining the risk of CLABSI in cancer patients who received TIVAPs compared with those who received external CVCs were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of each study. A random-effect model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: In all, 26 studies involving 27 cohorts and 5575 patients reporting the incidence of CLABSI in patients with TIVAPs compared with external CVCs were included. Pooled meta-analysis of these trials revealed that TIVAPs were associated with a significant lower risk of CLABSI than were external CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.62; P < 0.00001), which was confirmed by trial sequential analysis for the cumulative z curve entered the futility area. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in adult patients (RR [95% CI], 0.35 [0.22-0.56]) compared with pediatric patients who received TIVAPs (RR [95% CI], 0.55 [0.38-0.79]). CONCLUSIONS: TIVAP can significantly reduce the risk of CLABSI compared with external CVCs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central line-associated bloodstream infection; External central venous catheters; Meta-analysis; Totally implantable venous access ports
Authors: L Lefebvre; E Noyon; D Georgescu; V Proust; C Alexandru; M Leheurteur; J C Thery; L Savary; O Rigal; F Di Fiore; C Veyret; F Clatot Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: G S Patel; K Jain; R Kumar; A H Strickland; L Pellegrini; J Slavotinek; M Eaton; W McLeay; T Price; M Ly; S Ullah; B Koczwara; G Kichenadasse; C S Karapetis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: D Pegues; P Axelrod; C McClarren; B L Eisenberg; J P Hoffman; F D Ottery; R D Keidan; M Boraas; J Weese Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 3.454