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.

Dominating search: Google before the law

For many, particularly in the Anglophone world and Western Europe, it may be obvious that Google has a monopoly over online search and advertising and that this is an undesirable state of affairs, due to Google's ability to mediate information flows online. The baffling question may be why governments and regulators are doing little to nothing about this situation, given the increasingly pivotal importance of the internet and free flowing communications in our lives. However, the law concerning monopolies, namely antitrust or competition law, works in what may be seen as a less intuitive way by the general public. Monopolies themselves are not illegal. Conduct that is unlawful, i.e. abuses of that market power, is defined by a complex set of rules and revolves principally around economic harm suffered due to anticompetitive behavior. However the effect of information monopolies over search, such as Google’s, is more than just economic, yet competition law does not address this. Furthermore, Google’s collection and analysis of user data and its portfolio of related services make it difficult for others to compete. Such a situation may also explain why Google’s established search rivals, Bing and Yahoo, have not managed to provide services that are as effective or popular as Google’s own (on this issue see also the texts by Dirk Lewandowski and Astrid Mager in this reader). Users, however, are not entirely powerless. Google's business model rests, at least partially, on them – especially the data collected about them. If they stop using Google, then Google is nothing.