• JAMA · Apr 1992

    Meta Analysis

    Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. A meta-analysis of the infection risks.

    • K K Hoffmann, D J Weber, G P Samsa, and W A Rutala.
    • Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7030.
    • JAMA. 1992 Apr 15; 267 (15): 2072-6.

    ObjectiveTo obtain a quantitative estimate of the impact on infectious complications of using transparent dressings with intravenous catheters.Data SourcesMeta-analysis of all studies published in the English literature, including abstracts, letters, and reports that examined the primary research question of infection risks associated with transparent compared with gauze dressings for use on central and peripheral venous catheters. Studies were identified by use of the MEDLINE database using the indexing terms occlusive dressings, transparent dressings, and infection and by review of referenced bibliographies.Study SelectionSeven of the 15 studies (47%) of central venous catheters and seven of 12 studies (58%) of peripheral catheters met our inclusion criteria for analysis. All studies used a prospective cohort design, utilized hospitalized patients, and reported at least one of our defined outcomes.ExtractionData for each study were abstracted independently by three investigators. At least three studies were used in the analysis of each outcome.Data SynthesisApplying a Mantel-Haenszel chi 2 analysis, use of transparent dressings on central venous catheters was significantly associated with an elevated relative risk (RR) of catheter tip infection (RR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 2.30). Catheter-related sepsis (RR = 1.69; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.95) and bacteremia (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 0.76 to 3.47) were both associated with an elevated RR. Use of transparent dressings on peripheral catheters was associated with an elevated RR of catheter-tip infection (RR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.99) but not phlebitis (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.20), infiltration (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.37), or skin colonization (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.09).ConclusionThe results demonstrated a significantly increased risk of catheter-tip infection with the use of transparent compared with gauze dressings when used with either central or peripheral catheters. An increased risk of bacteremia and catheter sepsis associated with the use of transparent compared with gauze dressings for use on central venous catheters was suggested.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…