首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Internal Medicine >Systematic Review: Antimicrobial Urinary Catheters To Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Hospitalized Patients
【24h】

Systematic Review: Antimicrobial Urinary Catheters To Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Hospitalized Patients

机译:系统评价:抗菌导尿管可预防住院患者的导尿管相关尿路感染

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The efficacy of antimicrobial urinary catheters in hospitalized patients is poorly defined. nnPurpose: To assess currently marketed antimicrobial urinary catheters for preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infection (UTI). nnData Sources: Electronic databases, conference proceedings, bibliographies, trialists, and catheter manufacturers (search dates, 1966 to June 2005). nnStudy Selection: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of nitrofurazone-coated or silver alloy–coated antimicrobial urinary catheter use for less than 30 days; no language restriction. nnData Extraction: Study design, study sample, inclusion and exclusion criteria, allocation, blinding, UTI definition, ascertainment methods, and proportion developing symptomatic UTI (primary end point) or bacteriuria (secondary end point) were extracted by using a structured data collection instrument. nnData Synthesis: Twelve qualifying trials (13 392 total participants or catheters) were identified. They compared nitrofurazone-coated silicone (n = 3) or silver-coated latex (n = 9) catheters with silicone or latex catheters. No study addressed symptomatic UTI. All trials suggested protection against bacteriuria with test catheter use. However, effect size varied considerably and postrandomization exclusions were very common. Effect size was greatest in trials of nitrofurazone-coated catheters (all post-1995) and in pre-1995 silver alloy–coated catheter trials and was smallest in post-1995 silver alloy–coated catheter trials. Control group bacteriuria rate, control catheter type (latex vs. silicone), and patient sample (urology vs. other) also predicted effect size. Few studies addressed secondary bloodstream infection, mortality, costs, or microbial resistance. Short-term adverse effects were minimal. nnLimitations: The study was limited by the number, size, and quality of studies and by lack of the following: intention-to-treat analyses, data on clinical end points, and trials comparing nitrofurazone-coated with silver alloy–coated catheters. nnConclusions: According to fair-quality evidence, antimicrobial urinary catheters can prevent bacteriuria in hospitalized patients during short-term catheterization, depending on antimicrobial coating and several other variables. Older data probably lack current relevance. Cost implications and effect on infectious complications remain undefined.
机译:抗菌导尿管在住院患者中的疗效定义不清。目的:评估当前市场上用于预防与导管相关的尿路感染(UTI)的抗菌导尿管。 nn数据来源:电子数据库,会议记录,书目,试验人员和导管制造商(搜索日期,1966年至2005年6月)。研究选择:硝呋喃酮涂层或银合金涂层抗菌导尿管使用少于30天的随机和半随机试验;没有语言限制。 nn数据提取:通过使用结构化数据收集工具提取研究设计,研究样本,纳入和排除标准,分配,盲法,UTI定义,确定方法以及有症状的有症状的UTI(主要终点)或细菌尿(次要终点)。 。 nn数据综合:鉴定了十二项资格试验(总共13 392名参与者或导管)。他们将涂有呋喃酮的有机硅导管(n = 3)或涂银的乳胶导管(n = 9)与有机硅或乳胶导管进行了比较。没有研究针对有症状的UTI。所有试验均建议通过使用测试导管来防止细菌尿。但是,效应大小差异很大,随机后排除非常普遍。在硝呋喃酮涂层的导管试验中(所有1995年以后)和1995年之前的银合金涂层导管试验中,效应量最大,在1995年后的银合金涂层导管试验中,效应量最小。对照组菌尿率,对照导管类型(乳胶对比硅胶)和患者样本(泌尿科对比其他)也可以预测效果的大小。很少有研究涉及继发性血液感染,死亡率,成本或微生物抵抗力。短期不良影响很小。 nn局限性:该研究受到研究数量,规模和质量的限制,并且缺乏以下条件:意向性治疗分析,临床终点数据以及比较硝呋喃酮涂层与银合金涂层导管的试验。 nn结论:根据公平的证据,抗菌导尿管可以在短期导管插入期间预防住院患者的细菌尿,具体取决于抗菌涂层和其他一些变量。较旧的数据可能缺乏当前的相关性。费用影响和对感染并发症的影响仍然不确定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号