Gauze and tape and transparent polyurethane dressings for central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND Central venous catheters (CVCs) facilitate venous access, allowing the intravenous administration of complex drug treatments, blood products and nutritional support, without the trauma associated with repeated venepuncture. However, CVCs are associated with a risk of infection. Some studies have indicated that the type of dressing used with them may affect the risk of infection. Gauze and tape, transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm® and Opsite®, and highly vapour-permeable transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Opsite IV3000®, are the most common types of dressing used to secure CVCs. Currently, it is not clear which type of dressing is the most appropriate. OBJECTIVES To compare gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane CVC dressings in terms of catheter-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised adults and children. SEARCH METHODS For this third update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (10 May 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 4 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, May 11, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 6 May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of dressing type (e.g. gauze and tape versus transparent polyurethane dressings) on CVC-related infection, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material and dressing condition in hospitalised patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. MAIN RESULTS Six studies were included in earlier versions of the review. In this update two of the previously included papers have been excluded and two new trials have been added. Of these six trials, four compared gauze and tape with transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 337) and two compared different transparent polyurethane dressings (total participants = 126). Catheter-related bloodstream infection was higher in the transparent polyurethane group when compared with gauze and tape; OR 4.19 (95%CI 1.02 to 17.23) however these small trials were at risk of bias so this evidence is graded low quality. There was no evidence of a difference between highly permeable polyurethane dressings and other polyurethane dressings in the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection (low quality evidence). No other significant differences were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found a four-fold increase in the rate of catheter related blood stream infection when a polyurethane dressing was used to secure the central venous catheter however this research was at risk of bias and the confidence intervals were wide indicating high uncertainty around this estimate; so the true effect could be as small as 2% or as high as 17-fold. More, better quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of gauze and tape versus polyurethane dressings for central venous catheter sites.

[1]  B. Petrosino,et al.  Infection rates in central venous catheter dressings. , 1988, Oncology nursing forum.

[2]  D. Keenlyside Avoiding an unnecessary outcome. A comparative trial between IV3000 and a conventional film dressing to assess rates of catheter-related sepsis. , 1993, Professional nurse.

[3]  W. L. Scott Central Venous Catheters: An Overview of Food and Drug Administration Activities , 1995 .

[4]  J. Wille,et al.  A comparison of two transparent film-type dressings in central venous therapy. , 1993, The Journal of hospital infection.

[5]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMC medicine.

[6]  A. Jiménez-Sosa,et al.  Comparative Safety and Costs of Transparent Versus Gauze Wound Dressings in Intravenous Catheterization , 2011, Journal of nursing care quality.

[7]  K. McCredie,et al.  Comparison of transparent dressing to paper tape dressing over central venous catheter sites. , 1986, NITA.

[8]  D. Altman,et al.  Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies , 2008 .

[9]  D. Freiberger,et al.  The Effects of Different Central Venous Line Dressing Changes on Bacterial Growth in a Pediatric Oncology Population , 1992, Journal of pediatric oncology nursing : official journal of the Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses.

[10]  M. Pearson Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Part I. Intravascular device-related infections : an overview. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee , 1996 .

[11]  G. Young,et al.  Catheter sepsis during parenteral nutrition: the safety of long-term OpSite dressings. , 1988, JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

[12]  S. Cournoyer,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing a Transparent Dressing and a Dry Gauze on the Exit Site of Long Term Central Venous Catheters of Hemodialysis Patients , 2003, The journal of vascular access.

[13]  R. Olmsted,et al.  Impact of dressing materials on central venous catheter infection rates. , 1997, Journal of intravenous nursing : the official publication of the Intravenous Nurses Society.

[14]  J. Heilman,et al.  Clinical Performance of a New Transparent Chlorhexidine Gluconate Central Venous Catheter Dressing , 2008 .

[15]  L. Mermel What is the predominant source of intravascular catheter infections? , 2011, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[16]  T. Elliott,et al.  Prevention of central venous catheter-related infection. , 1998, The Journal of hospital infection.

[17]  N. Fishman,et al.  Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee , 2012 .

[18]  D G Altman,et al.  Statistics Notes: Detecting skewness from summary information , 1996, BMJ.

[19]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses , 2008 .

[20]  M. Reynolds,et al.  Do dressings with increased permeability reduce the incidence of central venous catheter related sepsis? , 1997, Intensive & critical care nursing.

[21]  P. Herlevsen,et al.  A comparative study of 'Op-site' and 'Nobecutan gauze' dressings for central venous line care. , 1986, The Journal of hospital infection.

[22]  S. Smith,et al.  Clinically significant central venous catheter infections in a community hospital: association with type of dressing. , 1989, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[23]  Dan M. Kluger,et al.  The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. , 2006, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[24]  D. Palmer,et al.  Central line exit sites: which dressing? , 1998, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[25]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  Leonard Mermel,et al.  Prevention of Intravascular CatheterRelated Infections , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[27]  P. Fabri,et al.  Evaluation of Opsite catheter dressings for parenteral nutrition: a prospective, randomized study. , 1982, JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

[28]  J. Conly,et al.  A prospective, randomized study comparing transparent and dry gauze dressings for central venous catheters. , 1989, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[29]  Z. Moore,et al.  Interventions for preventing infectious complications in haemodialysis patients with central venous catheters. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[30]  J. Lucke,et al.  Comparison of central venous catheter dressings in bone marrow transplant recipients. , 1996, Oncology nursing forum.

[31]  K. Kudsk,et al.  Op-Site dressing study: a prospective randomized study evaluating povidone iodine ointment and extension set changes with 7-day Op-Site dressings applied to total parenteral nutrition subclavian sites. , 1985, JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

[32]  G P Samsa,et al.  Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. A meta-analysis of the infection risks. , 1992, JAMA.

[33]  B. Wesorick,et al.  Bacterial growth under a transparent dressing. , 1987, American journal of infection control.

[34]  E. Larson,et al.  A comparison of transparent adherent and dry sterile gauze dressings for long-term central catheters in patients undergoing bone marrow transplant. , 1991, Oncology nursing forum.

[35]  S. Fletcher Catheter-related bloodstream infection , 2005 .

[36]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[37]  Y. Giles,et al.  What Really Affects the Incidence of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections for Short-Term Catheterization ? , 2002, Acta chirurgica Belgica.

[38]  R. D. McCormick,et al.  Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. , 2002, Infection control and hospital epidemiology.

[39]  D. Barbosa,et al.  Evaluación del tipo de curativo utilizado en cateter venoso central para hemodiálisis , 2009 .

[40]  R. Martin,et al.  Protection of indwelling vascular catheters: Incidence of bacterial contamination and catheter‐related sepsis , 1985, Critical care medicine.