Establishment of a risk prediction model for peripherally inserted central catheter-related bloodstream infections based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 cohorts.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1111/wvn.12762
Qian Zhang, Hongjuan Li, Lin Chen, Xinping Mu, Junying Li
{"title":"Establishment of a risk prediction model for peripherally inserted central catheter-related bloodstream infections based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 cohorts.","authors":"Qian Zhang, Hongjuan Li, Lin Chen, Xinping Mu, Junying Li","doi":"10.1111/wvn.12762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for extended intravenous therapy but are associated with a significant risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs), which increase morbidity and healthcare costs.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of this study was to identify patients at high risk of developing PICC-related bloodstream infections (PICC-RBSIs) to establish new and more specific targets for precise prevention and intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted from the earliest available record to May 2024 among the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Scopus, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Hand searching for gray literature and reference lists of included papers was also performed. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Two reviewers screened all the retrieved articles, extracted the data, and critically appraised the studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan statistical software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 20 cohort studies involving 51,907 individuals were included in the analysis. The statistically significant risk factors identified were hospital length of stay, line type (tunneled), history of PICC placement, multiple lumens, previous infections, chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, hematological cancers, delays in catheter care, local signs of infection (e.g., localized rashes), previous BSIs, and diabetes mellitus. Due to high heterogeneity among studies regarding previous BSIs, this factor was excluded from the final predictive model, while all other risk factors were included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present meta-analysis identified risk factors for PICC-RBSIs and developed a predictive model based on these findings, incorporating 10 risk factors that integrate both patient-specific and procedural factors.</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>Integrating the risk prediction model for PICC-RBSI into clinical guidelines and training is essential. Healthcare providers should be trained to use this model to identify high-risk patients and implement preventive measures proactively. This integration could enhance personalized care, reduce infection incidence, and improve patient outcomes. Future research should update the model with new risk factors and validate its effectiveness in diverse clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"e12762"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12762","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for extended intravenous therapy but are associated with a significant risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs), which increase morbidity and healthcare costs.

Aim: The aim of this study was to identify patients at high risk of developing PICC-related bloodstream infections (PICC-RBSIs) to establish new and more specific targets for precise prevention and intervention.

Methods: A search was conducted from the earliest available record to May 2024 among the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Scopus, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Hand searching for gray literature and reference lists of included papers was also performed. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Two reviewers screened all the retrieved articles, extracted the data, and critically appraised the studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan statistical software.

Results: A total of 20 cohort studies involving 51,907 individuals were included in the analysis. The statistically significant risk factors identified were hospital length of stay, line type (tunneled), history of PICC placement, multiple lumens, previous infections, chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, hematological cancers, delays in catheter care, local signs of infection (e.g., localized rashes), previous BSIs, and diabetes mellitus. Due to high heterogeneity among studies regarding previous BSIs, this factor was excluded from the final predictive model, while all other risk factors were included.

Conclusions: The present meta-analysis identified risk factors for PICC-RBSIs and developed a predictive model based on these findings, incorporating 10 risk factors that integrate both patient-specific and procedural factors.

Linking evidence to action: Integrating the risk prediction model for PICC-RBSI into clinical guidelines and training is essential. Healthcare providers should be trained to use this model to identify high-risk patients and implement preventive measures proactively. This integration could enhance personalized care, reduce infection incidence, and improve patient outcomes. Future research should update the model with new risk factors and validate its effectiveness in diverse clinical settings.

基于20个队列的系统回顾和荟萃分析,建立外周插入中心导管相关血流感染的风险预测模型。
背景:外周插入中心导管(PICCs)通常用于延长静脉治疗,但与血流感染(bsi)的显著风险相关,这增加了发病率和医疗保健费用。目的:本研究的目的是识别发生picc相关血流感染(PICC-RBSIs)的高危患者,以建立新的和更具体的目标,以进行精确的预防和干预。方法:检索Embase、MEDLINE、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、护理与相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)、Web of Science、Scopus、中国知网(CNKI)等数据库中最早可查记录至2024年5月。手工检索灰色文献和纳入论文的参考文献列表。我们使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)检查表评估研究的质量。两位审稿人筛选了所有检索到的文章,提取了数据,并对研究进行了批判性评价。数据分析采用RevMan统计软件。结果:共纳入20项队列研究,涉及51,907人。确定的具有统计学意义的危险因素包括住院时间、管道类型(隧道式)、PICC放置史、多个管腔、既往感染、化疗、全肠外营养、血液学癌症、导管护理延误、局部感染迹象(如局部皮疹)、既往脑损伤和糖尿病。由于关于既往脑损伤的研究具有高度异质性,该因素被排除在最终的预测模型之外,而所有其他危险因素都被纳入其中。结论:本荟萃分析确定了picc - rbsi的危险因素,并基于这些发现建立了一个预测模型,包括10个风险因素,整合了患者特异性和程序性因素。将证据与行动联系起来:将PICC-RBSI的风险预测模型整合到临床指南和培训中至关重要。医疗保健提供者应接受培训,使用该模型识别高风险患者并主动实施预防措施。这种整合可以增强个性化护理,减少感染发生率,改善患者预后。未来的研究应该用新的危险因素来更新模型,并在不同的临床环境中验证其有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
11.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for: Clinicians Researchers Nurse leaders Managers Administrators Educators Policymakers Worldviews on Evidence­-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring: Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信