Does Parenteral Nutrition Increase the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection? A Systematic Literature Review.

IF 4.1
Nicole Clare Gavin, Elise Button, Samantha Keogh, David McMillan, Claire Rickard
{"title":"Does Parenteral Nutrition Increase the Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infection? A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Nicole Clare Gavin, Elise Button, Samantha Keogh, David McMillan, Claire Rickard","doi":"10.1177/0148607117714218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":520701,"journal":{"name":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"918-928"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607117714218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for parenteral nutrition (PN) delivery. We systematically reviewed research-based publications that reported comparative rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in patients with CVADs who received PN vs those who did not receive PN therapy.

Materials and methods: The literature search included the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed up to July 14, 2015, to identity studies that compared patients with a CVAD who did and did not have PN therapy.

Results: Eleven observational studies were identified, comprising 2854 participants with 6287 CVADs. Six studies produced significant results in favor of non-PN, 4 studies showed no evidence of a difference between PN and non-PN, and 1 study produced significant results in favor of PN when analyzed per patient with multiple CVADs. Incidence ranged from 0 to 6.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the PN patients and 0.39 to 3.6 CRBSIs per 1000 CVAD days in the non-PN patients. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions was used. Eight studies were rated as moderate risk of bias, 2 as serious, and 1 as critical.

Conclusion: The data presented in this systematic review are not sufficient to establish whether patients receiving PN are more at risk of developing CRBSI than those who do not. Future PN studies needs to adjust for baseline imbalances and improve quality and reporting.

肠外营养是否会增加导管相关血流感染的风险?系统文献综述。
背景:中心静脉通路装置(CVADs)用于肠外营养(PN)输送。我们系统地回顾了基于研究的出版物,这些出版物报道了cvad患者接受PN治疗与未接受PN治疗的导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)的比较率。材料和方法:文献检索包括截至2015年7月14日的Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、CINAHL和PubMed,以确定比较接受和未接受PN治疗的CVAD患者的研究。结果:11项观察性研究被确定,包括2854名参与者,6287例cvad。6项研究得出了支持非PN的显著结果,4项研究没有证据表明PN和非PN之间存在差异,1项研究在分析多个cvad患者时得出了支持PN的显著结果。PN患者每1000 CVAD天crbsi发生率为0 - 6.6,非PN患者每1000 CVAD天crbsi发生率为0.39 - 3.6。采用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具对干预措施进行非随机研究。8项研究被评为中度偏倚风险,2项为严重偏倚风险,1项为严重偏倚风险。结论:本系统综述提供的数据不足以确定接受PN治疗的患者是否比未接受PN治疗的患者发生CRBSI的风险更高。未来的PN研究需要调整基线不平衡,提高质量和报告。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信