Cost-effectiveness of a central venous catheter care bundle

Background: A bundled approach to central venous catheter care is currently being promoted as an effective way of preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). Consumables used in the bundled approach are relatively inexpensive which may lead to the conclusion that the bundle is cost-effective. However, this fails to consider the nontrivial costs of the monitoring and education activities required to implement the bundle, or that alternative strategies are available to prevent CR-BSI. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundle to prevent CR-BSI in Australian intensive care patients. ---------- Methods and Findings: A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the bundle relative to remaining with current practice (a non-bundled approach to catheter care and uncoated catheters), or use of antimicrobial catheters. We assumed the bundle reduced relative risk of CR-BSI to 0.34. Given uncertainty about the cost of the bundle, threshold analyses were used to determine the maximum cost at which the bundle remained cost-effective relative to the other approaches to infection control. Sensitivity analyses explored how this threshold alters under different assumptions about the economic value placed on bed-days and health benefits gained by preventing infection. If clinicians are prepared to use antimicrobial catheters, the bundle is cost-effective if national 18-month implementation costs are below $1.1 million. If antimicrobial catheters are not an option the bundle must cost less than $4.3 million. If decision makers are only interested in obtaining cash-savings for the unit, and place no economic value on either the bed-days or the health benefits gained through preventing infection, these cost thresholds are reduced by two-thirds.---------- Conclusions: A catheter care bundle has the potential to be cost-effective in the Australian intensive care setting. Rather than anticipating cash-savings from this intervention, decision makers must be prepared to invest resources in infection control to see efficiency improvements.

In Response: "Oral versus IV treatment for catheter-related bloodstream infections - by Burke A. Cunha"

In his letter Cunha suggests that oral antibiotic therapy is safer and less expensive than intravenous therapy via central venous catheters (CVCs) (1). The implication is that costs will fall and increased health benefits will be enjoyed resulting in a gain in efficiency within the healthcare system. CVCs are often used in critically ill patients to deliver antimicrobial therapy, but expose patients to a risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Our current knowledge about the efficiency (i.e. costeffectiveness) of allocating resources toward interventions that prevent CRBSI in patients requiring a CVC has already been reviewed (2). If for some patient groups antimicrobial therapy can be delivered orally, instead of through a CVC, then the costs and benefits of this alternate strategy should be evaluated...

Setting hospital infection control policy : a decision-making framework incorporating health economics and healthcare epidemiology

Background: Reducing rates of healthcare acquired infection has been identified by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care as a national priority. One of the goals is the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). At least 3,500 cases of CR-BSI occur annually in Australian hospitals, resulting in unnecessary deaths and costs to the healthcare system between $25.7 and $95.3 million. Two approaches to preventing these infections have been proposed: use of antimicrobial catheters (A-CVCs); or a catheter care and management ‘bundle’. Given finite healthcare budgets, decisions about the optimal infection control policy require consideration of the effectiveness and value for money of each approach. Objectives: The aim of this research is to use a rational economic framework to inform efficient infection control policy relating to the prevention of CR-BSI in the intensive care unit. It addresses three questions relating to decision-making in this area: 1. Is additional investment in activities aimed at preventing CR-BSI an efficient use of healthcare resources? 2. What is the optimal infection control strategy from amongst the two major approaches that have been proposed to prevent CR-BSI? 3. What uncertainty is there in this decision and can a research agenda to improve decision-making in this area be identified? Methods: A decision analytic model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to identify an efficient approach to preventing CR-BSI in Queensland Health intensive care units. A Markov model was developed in conjunction with a panel of clinical experts which described the epidemiology and prognosis of CR-BSI. The model was parameterised using data systematically identified from the published literature and extracted from routine databases. The quality of data used in the model and its validity to clinical experts and sensitivity to modelling assumptions was assessed. Two separate economic evaluations were conducted. The first evaluation compared all commercially available A-CVCs alongside uncoated catheters to identify which was cost-effective for routine use. The uncertainty in this decision was estimated along with the value of collecting further information to inform the decision. The second evaluation compared the use of A-CVCs to a catheter care bundle. We were unable to estimate the cost of the bundle because it is unclear what the full resource requirements are for its implementation, and what the value of these would be in an Australian context. As such we undertook a threshold analysis to identify the cost and effectiveness thresholds at which a hypothetical bundle would dominate the use of A-CVCs under various clinical scenarios. Results: In the first evaluation of A-CVCs, the findings from the baseline analysis, in which uncertainty is not considered, show that the use of any of the four A-CVCs will result in health gains accompanied by cost-savings. The MR catheters dominate the baseline analysis generating 1.64 QALYs and cost-savings of $130,289 per 1.000 catheters. With uncertainty, and based on current information, the MR catheters remain the optimal decision and return the highest average net monetary benefits ($948 per catheter) relative to all other catheter types. This conclusion was robust to all scenarios tested, however, the probability of error in this conclusion is high, 62% in the baseline scenario. Using a value of $40,000 per QALY, the expected value of perfect information associated with this decision is $7.3 million. An analysis of the expected value of perfect information for individual parameters suggests that it may be worthwhile for future research to focus on providing better estimates of the mortality attributable to CR-BSI and the effectiveness of both SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters. In the second evaluation of the catheter care bundle relative to A-CVCs, the results which do not consider uncertainty indicate that a bundle must achieve a relative risk of CR-BSI of at least 0.45 to be cost-effective relative to MR catheters. If the bundle can reduce rates of infection from 2.5% to effectively zero, it is cost-effective relative to MR catheters if national implementation costs are less than $2.6 million ($56,610 per ICU). If the bundle can achieve a relative risk of 0.34 (comparable to that reported in the literature) it is cost-effective, relative to MR catheters, if costs over an 18 month period are below $613,795 nationally ($13,343 per ICU). Once uncertainty in the decision is considered, the cost threshold for the bundle increases to $2.2 million. Therefore, if each of the 46 Level III ICUs could implement an 18 month catheter care bundle for less than $47,826 each, this approach would be cost effective relative to A-CVCs. However, the uncertainty is substantial and the probability of error in concluding that the bundle is the cost-effective approach at a cost of $2.2 million is 89%. Conclusions: This work highlights that infection control to prevent CR-BSI is an efficient use of healthcare resources in the Australian context. If there is no further investment in infection control, an opportunity cost is incurred, which is the potential for a more efficient healthcare system. Minocycline/rifampicin catheters are the optimal choice of antimicrobial catheter for routine use in Australian Level III ICUs, however, if a catheter care bundle implemented in Australia was as effective as those used in the large studies in the United States it would be preferred over the catheters if it was able to be implemented for less than $47,826 per Level III ICU. Uncertainty is very high in this decision and arises from multiple sources. There are likely greater costs to this uncertainty for A-CVCs, which may carry hidden costs, than there are for a catheter care bundle, which is more likely to provide indirect benefits to clinical practice and patient safety. Research into the mortality attributable to CR-BSI, the effectiveness of SPC and CH/SSD (int/ext) catheters and the cost and effectiveness of a catheter care bundle in Australia should be prioritised to reduce uncertainty in this decision. This thesis provides the economic evidence to inform one area of infection control, but there are many other infection control decisions for which information about the cost-effectiveness of competing interventions does not exist. This work highlights some of the challenges and benefits to generating and using economic evidence for infection control decision-making and provides support for commissioning more research into the cost-effectiveness of infection control.

Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections

Background People admitted to intensive care units and those with chronic health care problems often require long-term vascular access. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for administering intravenous medications and blood sampling. CVADs are covered with a dressing and secured with an adhesive or adhesive tape to protect them from infection and reduce movement. Dressings are changed when they become soiled with blood or start to come away from the skin. Repeated removal and application of dressings can cause damage to the skin. The skin is an important barrier that protects the body against infection. Less frequent dressing changes may reduce skin damage, but it is unclear whether this practice affects the frequency of catheter-related infections. Objectives To assess the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections and other outcomes including pain and skin damage. Search methods In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trials registries for registered trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections on all patients in any healthcare setting. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane review methodology. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We undertook meta-analysis where appropriate or otherwise synthesised data descriptively when heterogeneous. Main results We included five RCTs (2277 participants) that compared different frequencies of CVAD dressing changes. The studies were all conducted in Europe and published between 1995 and 2009. Participants were recruited from the intensive care and cancer care departments of one children's and four adult hospitals. The studies used a variety of transparent dressings and compared a longer interval between dressing changes (5 to15 days; intervention) with a shorter interval between changes (2 to 5 days; control). In each study participants were followed up until the CVAD was removed or until discharge from ICU or hospital. - Confirmed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) One trial randomised 995 people receiving central venous catheters to a longer or shorter interval between dressing changes and measured CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.98) (low quality evidence). - Suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection Two trials randomised a total of 151 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured suspected CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of suspected CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.10) (low quality evidence). - All cause mortality Three trials randomised a total of 896 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured all cause mortality. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of death from any cause between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25) (low quality evidence). - Catheter-site infection Two trials randomised a total of 371 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured catheter-site infection. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk of catheter-site infection between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63) (low quality evidence). - Skin damage One small trial (112 children) and three trials (1475 adults) measured skin damage. There was very low quality evidence for the effect of long intervals between dressing changes on skin damage compared with short intervals (children: RR of scoring ≥ 2 on the skin damage scale 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.68; data for adults not pooled). - Pain Two studies involving 193 participants measured pain. It is unclear if there is a difference between long and short interval dressing changes on pain during dressing removal (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.38) (low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions The best available evidence is currently inconclusive regarding whether longer intervals between CVAD dressing changes are associated with more or less catheter-related infection, mortality or pain than shorter intervals.

Economic evaluation and catheter-related bloodstream infections

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are a serious problem. Many interventions reduce risk, and some have been evaluated in cost-effectiveness studies. We review the usefulness and quality of these economic studies. Evidence is incomplete, and data required to inform a coherent policy are missing. The cost-effectiveness studies are characterized by a lack of transparency, short time-horizons, and narrow economic perspectives. Data quality is low for some important model parameters. Authors of future economic evaluations should aim to model the complete policy and not just single interventions. They should be rigorous in developing the structure of the economic model, include all relevant economic outcomes, use a systematic approach for selecting data sources for model parameters, and propagate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters on conclusions. This will inform future data collection and improve our understanding of the economics of preventing these infections.

Using the collaborative evidence based practice model : a systematic review and uptake of chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings on central venous access devices in a tertiary cancer centre

Background: Greater research utilisation in cancer nursing practice is needed, in order to provide well-informed and effective nursing care to people affected by cancer. This paper aims to report on the implementation of evidence-based practice in a tertiary cancer centre. Methods: Using a case report design, this paper reports on the use of the Collaborative Model for Evidence Based Practice (CMEBP) in an Australian tertiary cancer centre. The clinical case is the uptake of routine application of chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings for preventing centrally inserted catheter-related bloodstream infections. In this case report, a number of processes that resulted in a service-wide practice change are described. Results: This model was considered a feasible method for successful research utilisation. In this case report, chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings were proposed and implemented in the tertiary cancer centre with an aim of reducing the incidence of centrally inserted catheter-related bloodstream infections and potentially improving patient health outcomes. Conclusion: The CMEBP is feasible and effective for implementing clinical evidence into cancer nursing practice. Cancer nurses and health administrators need to ensure a supportive infrastructure and environment for clinical inquiry and research utilisation exists, in order to enable successful implementation of evidence-based practice in their cancer centres.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the PVD Specialised Register (December 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 11). We also searched MEDLINE (last searched October 2012) and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 but the confidence interval (CI) was wide, creating uncertainty around the estimate (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.

Cost effectiveness of antimicrobial catheters in the intensive care unit : Addressing uncertainty in the decision

Introduction: Some types of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters (A-CVC) have been shown to be cost-effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). However, not all types have been evaluated, and there are concerns over the quality and usefulness of these earlier studies. There is uncertainty amongst clinicians over which, if any, antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters to use. We re-evaluated the cost-effectiveness of all commercially available antimicrobialcoated central venous catheters for prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: We used a Markov decision model to compare the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters relative to uncoated catheters. Four catheter types were evaluated; minocycline and rifampicin (MR)-coated catheters; silver, platinum and carbon (SPC)-impregnated catheters; and two chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters, one coated on the external surface (CH/SSD (ext)) and the other coated on both surfaces (CH/SSD (int/ext)). The incremental cost per qualityadjusted life-year gained and the expected net monetary benefits were estimated for each. Uncertainty arising from data estimates, data quality and heterogeneity was explored in sensitivity analyses. Results: The baseline analysis, with no consideration of uncertainty, indicated all four types of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters were cost-saving relative to uncoated catheters. Minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters prevented 15 infections per 1,000 catheters and generated the greatest health benefits, 1.6 quality-adjusted life-years, and cost-savings, AUD $130,289. After considering uncertainty in the current evidence, the minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters returned the highest incremental monetary net benefits of $948 per catheter; but there was a 62% probability of error in this conclusion. Although the minocycline and rifampicin-coated catheters had the highest monetary net benefits across multiple scenarios, the decision was always associated with high uncertainty. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that the cost-effectiveness of using antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters within the ICU is highly uncertain. Policies to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection amongst ICU patients should consider the cost-effectiveness of competing interventions in the light of this uncertainty. Decision makers would do well to consider the current gaps in knowledge and the complexity of producing good quality evidence in this area.

Intravascular device-related research : future priority areas for cancer nursing

The majority of cancer nurses have to manage intravascular devices (IVDs) on a daily basis, thus placing nurses in the strongest position to generate and use best available evidence to inform this area of practice and to ensure that patients are receiving the best care available. Our literature clearly reflects that cancer nurses are concerned about complications associated with IVDs (eg, extravasation,1 IVD-related bloodstream infection [IVD-BSI],2,3 and thrombosis4). Although enormous attention is given to this area, a number of nursing practices are not sufficiently based on empirical evidence.5,6 Nurses need to set goals and priorities for future research and investments. Priority areas for future research are suggested here for your consideration.

Intravascular device administration sets: Replacement after standard versus prolonged use in hospitalised patients--a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (The RSVP Trial)

Introduction Vascular access devices (VADs), such as peripheral or central venous catheters, are vital across all medical and surgical specialties. To allow therapy or haemodynamic monitoring, VADs frequently require administration sets (AS) composed of infusion tubing, fluid containers, pressure-monitoring transducers and/or burettes. While VADs are replaced only when necessary, AS are routinely replaced every 3–4 days in the belief that this reduces infectious complications. Strong evidence supports AS use up to 4 days, but there is less evidence for AS use beyond 4 days. AS replacement twice weekly increases hospital costs and workload. Methods and analysis This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of equivalence design comparing AS replacement at 4 (control) versus 7 (experimental) days. Randomisation is stratified by site and device, centrally allocated and concealed until enrolment. 6554 adult/paediatric patients with a central venous catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter or peripheral arterial catheter will be enrolled over 4 years. The primary outcome is VAD-related bloodstream infection (BSI) and secondary outcomes are VAD colonisation, AS colonisation, all-cause BSI, all-cause mortality, number of AS per patient, VAD time in situ and costs. Relative incidence rates of VAD-BSI per 100 devices and hazard rates per 1000 device days (95% CIs) will summarise the impact of 7-day relative to 4-day AS use and test equivalence. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log rank Mantel-Cox test) will compare VAD-BSI over time. Appropriate parametric or non-parametric techniques will be used to compare secondary end points. p Values of <0.05 will be considered significant.

A time and motion study of peripheral venous catheter flushing practice using manually prepared and prefilled flush syringes

Peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) are the simplest and most frequently used method for drug, fluid, and blood product administration in the hospital setting. It is estimated that up to 90% of patients in acute care hospitals require a PVC; however, PVCs are associated with inherent complications, which can be mechanical or infectious. There have been a range of strategies to prevent or reduce PVC-related complications that include optimizing patency through the use of flushing. Little is known about the current status of flushing practice. This observational study quantified preparation and administration time and identified adherence to principles of Aseptic Non-Touch Technique and organizational protocol on PVC flushing by using both manually prepared and prefilled syringes.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children

Background Guidelines and clinical practice for the prevention of complications associated with central venous catheters (CVC) around the world vary greatly. Most institutions recommend the use of heparin to prevent occlusion, however there is debate regarding the need for heparin and evidence to suggest 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) may be as effective. The use of heparin is not without risk, may be unnecessary and is also associated with increased cost. Objectives To assess the clinical effects (benefits and harms) of intermittent flushing of heparin versus normal saline to prevent occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children. Search Methods The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (Issue 3, 2015). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials that compared the efficacy of normal saline with heparin to prevent occlusion of long term CVCs in infants and children aged up to 18 years of age were included. We excluded temporary CVCs and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial inclusion criteria, trial quality and extracted data. Rate ratios were calculated for two outcome measures - occlusion of the CVC and central line-associated blood stream infection. Other outcome measures included duration of catheter placement, inability to withdraw blood from the catheter, use of urokinase or recombinant tissue plasminogen, incidence of removal or re-insertion of the catheter, or both, and other CVC-related complications such as dislocation of CVCs, other CVC site infections and thrombosis. Main Results Three trials with a total of 245 participants were included in this review. The three trials directly compared the use of normal saline and heparin, however, between studies, all used different protocols for the standard and experimental arms with different concentrations of heparin and different frequency of flushes reported. In addition, not all studies reported on all outcomes. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low because there was no blinding, heterogeneity and inconsistency between studies was high and the confidence intervals were wide. CVC occlusion was assessed in all three trials (243 participants). We were able to pool the results of two trials for the outcomes of CVC occlusion and CVC-associated blood stream infection. The estimated rate ratio for CVC occlusion per 1000 catheter days between the normal saline and heparin group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.10 to 5.51, two studies, 229 participants, very low quality evidence). The estimated rate ratio for CVC-associated blood stream infection was 1.48 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.37, two studies, 231 participants; low quality evidence). The duration of catheter placement was reported to be similar between the two study arms, in one study (203 participants). Authors' Conclusions The review found that there was not enough evidence to determine the effects of intermittent flushing of heparin versus normal saline to prevent occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children. Ultimately, if this evidence were available, the development of evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines and consistency of practice would be facilitated.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long term central venous catheters in infants and children: A systematic review

Background Around the world, guidelines and clinical practice for the prevention of complications associated with central venous catheters (CVC) vary greatly. To prevent occlusion, most institutions recommend the use of heparin when the CVC is not in use. However, there is debate regarding the need for heparin and evidence to suggest normal saline may be as effective. The use of heparin is not without risk, may be unnecessary and is also associated with increased costs. Objectives To assess the clinical effects (benefits and harms) of heparin versus normal saline to prevent occlusion in long-term central venous catheters in infants, children and adolescents. Design A Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled trials was undertaken. - Data sources: The Cochrane Vascular Group Specialised Register (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and AMED) and the Cochrane Register of Studies were searched. Hand searching of relevant journals and reference lists of retrieved articles was also undertaken. - Review Methods: Data were extracted and appraisal undertaken. We included studies that compared the efficacy of normal saline with heparin to prevent occlusion. We excluded temporary CVCs and peripherally inserted central catheters. Rate ratios per 1000 catheter days were calculated for two outcomes, occlusion of the CVC, and CVC-associated blood stream infection. Results Three trials with a total of 245 participants were included in this review. The three trials directly compared the use of normal saline and heparin. However, between studies, all used different protocols with various concentrations of heparin and frequency of flushes. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low. The estimated rate ratio for CVC occlusion per 1000 catheter days between the normal saline and heparin group was 0.75 (95% CI 0.10 to 5.51, two studies, 229 participants, very low quality evidence). The estimated rate ratio for CVC-associated blood stream infection was 1.48 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.37, two studies, 231 participants; low quality evidence). Conclusions It remains unclear whether heparin is necessary for CVC maintenance. More well-designed studies are required to understand this relatively simple, but clinically important question. Ultimately, if this evidence were available, the development of evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines and consistency of practice would be facilitated.

Effectiveness of electrocardiographic guidance in CVAD tip placement

Background International standard practice for the correct confirmation of the central venous access device is the chest X-ray. The intracavitary electrocardiogram-based insertion method is radiation-free, and allows real-time placement verification, providing immediate treatment and reduced requirement for post-procedural repositioning. Methods Relevant databases were searched for prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi RCTs that compared the effectiveness of electrocardiogram-guided catheter tip positioning with placement using surface-anatomy-guided insertion plus chest X-ray confirmation. The primary outcome was accurate catheter tip placement. Secondary outcomes included complications, patient satisfaction and costs. Results Five studies involving 729 participants were included. Electrocardiogram-guided insertion was more accurate than surface anatomy guided insertion (odds ratio: 8.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38; 50.07; p=0.02). There was a lack of reporting on complications, patient satisfaction and costs. Conclusion The evidence suggests that intracavitary electrocardiogram-based positioning is superior to surface-anatomy-guided positioning of central venous access devices, leading to significantly more successful placements. This technique could potentially remove the requirement for post-procedural chest X-ray, especially during peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line insertion.