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.

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 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; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.