ANCCADI – Antibiotic Coated Catheter to Decrease Infection: a pilot trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nosocomial catheter-related bloodstream infections (CR-BSI) have been associated with increased morbidity and possibly increased mortality in critically ill patients. Central venous catheters impregnated with rifampin and minocycline (RM) have been shown to decrease rates of colonization and CR-BSI when compared with controls and with the chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine catheter. However, recent randomized trials challenged the clinical impact of such catheters, showing decreased rates in colonization but not in CR-BSI. We designed this pilot trial to compare the rates of colonization and CR-BSI in RM catheters and controls in a Brazilian population of critically ill patients. A prospective, nonrandomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in one medico-surgical 19-bed ICU. Adult patients needing a double or triple central venous catheter were sequentially assigned in permuted blocks of five to undergo insertion of a control or RM-impregnated catheter. After removal, all tips were cultured by the roll-plate method in association with one or two peripheral blood cultures. Rates of colonization and CR-BSI were recorded and compared. Of 120 catheters inserted, 100 could be evaluated for colonization and CR-BSI. Forty-nine in the uncoated group and 51 in the coated group. Clinical characteristics of patients and risk for infection were similar in the two groups, use of propofol was more frequent in the uncoated group and the presence of a vascular device, other than the study catheter, was more frequent in the antibiotic-coated group. Three RM-coated catheters (5.9%) were colonized compared with nine (18.4%) control catheters (relative risk, 0,28; 95% confidence interval, 0.07–1.096; P = 0.05). Three cases of CR-BSI (5.9%) occurred in patients who received RM catheters compared with five in the control group (10.2%). There was no significant differences in the incidence of CR-BSI between RM-coated and uncoated catheters. Uncoated catheters were more frequently colonized but this difference just failed to show statistical significance. When the duration of catheter placement were taken into consideration, Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant differences in the risk of colonization or CR-BSI between RM-coated and uncoated catheters. Rates of CR-BSI were seven per 1,000 catheter-days in the RM-coated group compared with 11.4 per 1,000 catheter-days in the uncoated group ( P = 0.7). Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms were similarly responsible for colonizing catheters in our study; there was no difference in rates of colonization by Candida species. In this pilot study, we showed a trend toward lower rates of colonization in RM-coated catheters when compared with uncoated control catheters. The incidence and rates of CR-BSI were similar in the two groups, probably because of a small number of catheters studied. Development of a prospective randomized trial with a larger number of patients is underway to confirm or refute these results.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».