Table 5
Appendix: Table 5.
Strength of Evidence for Using C-I Sponges under Standard Dressings vs. Using Standard Dressings or Gauze among Patients Aged < 18 Years with Short-term, Non-tunneled Central Venous Catheters F
Outcome | Findings | Quantity and Type of Evidence(Sample Size) | GRADE of Evidence for Outcome(Limitations of the Evidence) |
---|---|---|---|
CRBSIB |
|
2 RCTs6,7
(N=720) |
Very Low
(Indirect, G Imprecise H) |
CABSIB |
|
1 RCT8
(N=145) |
Low
(Imprecise I) |
BSI without a source B |
|
1 RCT6
(N=662) |
Very Low
(Indirect G, Imprecise J) |
Local catheter infection B |
|
1 RCT7
(N=100) |
Low
(Imprecise I) |
Product-related adverse events |
|
2 RCTs6,8
(N=850) |
Moderate
(Imprecise G) |
Footnotes
B A critical outcome
G Different skin antisepsis used for each study group.
H Wide confidence interval in one study, low power in second study.
I Underpowered; only 1 study.
J Only 1 study; wide confidence interval.
References
- Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, et al. A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics. 2001;107(6):1431-1436.
- Duzkaya DS, Sahiner NC, Uysal G, Yakut T, Citak A. Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Dressings and Prevention of Catheter-Associated Bloodstream Infections in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2016;36(6):e1-e7.
- Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(8):676-679.
Page last reviewed: December 14, 2017