Continuous heparin infusion to prevent thrombosis and catheter occlusion in neonates with peripherally placed percutaneous central venous catheters
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Complications associated with peripherally placed percutaneous central venous catheters (PCVC) in neonates include mechanical complications (catheter thrombosis, occlusion or dislodgement) and infection. Strategies to prevent catheter thrombosis and occlusion include the use of heparin. However, heparin is known to be associated with complications such as bleeding and thrombocytopenia. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of heparin for prevention of catheter related thrombosis. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of heparin on catheter occlusion, duration of catheter patency, catheter related sepsis and complications associated with the use of heparin. SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from their inception to December 2007, The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2007) and abstracts from the annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies was performed without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of neonates where heparin infusion was compared to placebo or no treatment for prevention of any of the complications related to peripherally placed PCVC were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of included trials was assessed using criteria for masking of randomization, masking of intervention, completeness of follow-up and masking of outcome measurement. Data on relevant outcomes were extracted and the effect size was estimated by calculating relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Three randomized trials were identified. Two trials of adequate methodology met the eligibility criteria. These studies included 267 neonates. There was reduced risk of catheter occlusion (typical RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15, 0.53, NNT 5, 95% CI 3, 8). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration of catheter patency when analyzed as continuous data; however, in one study survival analyses identified benefit with heparin (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36, 83); (Shah 2007). This could be due to higher incidence of elective removal of catheters in neonates at the completion of therapy in the heparin group (63% vs. 42%; p = 0.002) (Shah 2007). There was no statistically significant differences in the risk of thrombosis (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58, 1.51), catheter related sepsis (typical RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.50, 7.60), or extension of intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.25, 3.03) between the two groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prophylactic use of heparin for peripherally placed PCVC allows a greater number of infants to complete their intended use (complete therapy) by reducing occlusion. Evidence from this systematic review support the prophylactic use of heparin for PCVC in neonates at a dose of 0.5 IU/kg/hr. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: None of these studies was powered to evaluate a lower incidence rate of adverse events. If this therapy is adopted in routine practice, monitoring of side effects is indicated.
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 | 0,007 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».