-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Precise estimates of mortality in Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) are important to convey prognosis and guide the design of interventional studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate all-cause mortality in SAB and explore mortality change over time.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched from January 1, 1991 to May 7, 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Human observational studies on patients with S. aureus bloodstream infection were included.
PARTICIPANTS
The study analyzed data of patients with a positive blood culture for S. aureus.
METHODS
Two independent reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A generalized, linear, mixed random effects model was used to pool estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 341 studies were included, describing a total of 536,791 patients. From 2011 onward, the estimated mortality was 10.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-12.1%) at 7 days, 13.3% (95% CI, 11.1%-15.8%) at 2 weeks, 18.1% (95% CI, 16.3%-20.0%) at 1 month, 27.0% (95% CI, 21.5%-33.3%) at 3 months, and 30.2% (95% CI, 22.4%-39.3%) at 1 year. In a meta-regression model of 1-month mortality, methicillin-resistant S. aureus had a higher mortality rate (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06 per 10% increase in methicillin-resistant S. aureus proportion). Compared with prior to 2001, more recent time periods had a lower mortality rate (aOR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03 for 2001-2010; aOR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97 for 2011 onward).
CONCLUSIONS
SAB mortality has decreased over the last 3 decades. However, more than one in four patients will die within 3 months, and continuous improvement in care remains necessary.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Humans; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Sepsis; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 35339678
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.03.015 -
The American Journal of Medicine Mar 2022We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full...
BACKGROUND
We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively.
RESULTS
The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups.
DISCUSSION
Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Endocarditis; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Osteomyelitis
PubMed: 34715060
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.10.007 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023To analyze the mortality rate of patients with bacteremia (KPB) and the impact of extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing or carbapenem-resistance (CR) KP on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the mortality rate of patients with bacteremia (KPB) and the impact of extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing or carbapenem-resistance (CR) KP on the mortality rate among patients with bacteremia.
METHODS
EMbase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library were searched up to September 18, 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias of included studies by ROBINS-I tool. A meta-regression analysis was conducted using a mixed-effects model to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used for pooled analysis in case of significant heterogeneity (I>50%). Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 157 studies (37,915 enrolled patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled death proportions of KPB were 17% (95% CI=0.14-0.20) at 7-day, 24% (95% CI=0.21-0.28) at 14-day, 29% (95% CI=0.26-0.31) at 30-day, 34% (95% CI=0.26-0.42) at 90-day, and 29% (95% CI=0.26-0.33) in hospital, respectively. Heterogeneity was found from the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital-acquired (HA), CRKP, and ESBL-KP in the meta-regression analysis. More than 50% of ICU, HA, CRKP, and ESBL-KP were associated with a significant higher 30-day mortality rates. The pooled mortality odds ratios (ORs) of CRKP . non-CRKP were 3.22 (95% CI 1.18-8.76) at 7-day, 5.66 (95% CI 4.31-7.42) at 14-day, 3.87 (95% CI 3.01-3.49) at 28- or 30-day, and 4.05 (95% CI 3.38-4.85) in hospital, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicated that patients with KPB in ICU, HA-KPB, CRKP, and ESBL-KP bacteremia were associated with a higher mortality rate. The high mortality rate caused by CRKP bacteremia has increased over time, challenging the public health.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Klebsiella pneumoniae; Klebsiella Infections; Hydrolases; Bacteremia; Retrospective Studies; beta-Lactamases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37153146
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1157010 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2023Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing... (Review)
Review
Vancomycin (VCM) and daptomycin (DAP) are standard therapies for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) bacteremia, despite concerns regarding clinical utility and growing resistance. Linezolid (LZD) affords superior tissue penetration to VCM or DAP and has been successfully used as salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia, indicating its utility as a first-choice drug against MRSA bacteremia. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the effectiveness and safety of LZD with VCM, teicoplanin (TEIC), or DAP in patients with MRSA bacteremia. We evaluated all-cause mortality as the primary effectiveness outcome, clinical and microbiological cure, hospital length of stay, recurrence, and 90-day readmission rates as secondary effectiveness outcomes, and drug-related adverse effects as primary safety outcomes. We identified 5328 patients across 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 pooled analysis of 5 RCTs, 1 subgroup analysis (1 RCT), and 5 case-control and cohort studies (CSs). Primary and secondary effectiveness outcomes were comparable between patients treated with LZD versus VCM, TEIC, or DAP in RCT-based studies and CSs. There was no difference in adverse event incidence between LZD and comparators. These findings suggest that LZD could be a potential first-line drug against MRSA bacteremia as well as VCM or DAP.
PubMed: 37107059
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12040697 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2018The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of... (Review)
Review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure ( = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications ( = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30513764
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54060095 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jun 2017The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have advised restriction of AP to high-risk groups (in Europe and the USA) or against its use at all (in the UK). The objective of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence for use of AP for prevention of bacteraemia or IE in patients undergoing dental procedures.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science. We assessed the methodological characteristics of included studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for trials. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies, assessed the methodology of included studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We identified 178 eligible studies, of which 36 were included in the review. This included 10 time-trend studies, 5 observational studies and 21 trials. All trials identified used bacteraemia as an endpoint rather than IE. One time-trend study suggests that total AP restriction may be associated with a rising incidence of IE, while data on the consequences of relative AP restriction are conflicting. Meta-analysis of trials indicates that AP is effective in reducing the incidence of bacteraemia (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57, p<0.01), but case-control studies suggest this may not translate to a statistically significant protective effect against IE in patients at low risk of disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base for the use of AP is limited, heterogeneous and the methodological quality of many studies is poor. Postprocedural bacteraemia is not a good surrogate endpoint for IE. Given the logistical challenges of a randomised trial, high-quality case-control studies would help to evaluate the role of dental procedures in causing IE and the efficacy of AP in its prevention.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endocarditis; Humans
PubMed: 28213367
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309102 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL).
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure. Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.
Topics: Anemia; Erythrocyte Transfusion; Hematocrit; Hemoglobins; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34932836
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002042.pub5 -
JAMA Nov 2022The effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation is uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association Between Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and In-Hospital Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
The effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether SDD is associated with reduced risk of death in adults receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) compared with standard care.
DATA SOURCES
The primary search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases until September 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials including adults receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU comparing SDD vs standard care or placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. The primary analysis was conducted using a bayesian framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Subgroups included SDD with an intravenous agent compared with SDD without an intravenous agent. There were 8 secondary outcomes including the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, ICU-acquired bacteremia, and the incidence of positive cultures of antimicrobial-resistant organisms.
RESULTS
There were 32 randomized clinical trials including 24 389 participants in the analysis. The median age of participants in the included studies was 54 years (IQR, 44-60), and the median proportion of female trial participants was 33% (IQR, 25%-38%). Data from 30 trials including 24 034 participants contributed to the primary outcome. The pooled estimated risk ratio (RR) for mortality for SDD compared with standard care was 0.91 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.82-0.99; I2 = 33.9%; moderate certainty) with a 99.3% posterior probability that SDD reduced hospital mortality. The beneficial association of SDD was evident in trials with an intravenous agent (RR, 0.84 [95% CrI, 0.74-0.94]), but not in trials without an intravenous agent (RR, 1.01 [95% CrI, 0.91-1.11]) (P value for the interaction between subgroups = .02). SDD was associated with reduced risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.36-0.54]) and ICU-acquired bacteremia (RR, 0.68 [95% CrI, 0.57-0.81]). Available data regarding the incidence of positive cultures of antimicrobial-resistant organisms were not amenable to pooling and were of very low certainty.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among adults in the ICU treated with mechanical ventilation, the use of SDD compared with standard care or placebo was associated with lower hospital mortality. Evidence regarding the effect of SDD on antimicrobial resistance was of very low certainty.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacteremia; Bayes Theorem; Gastrointestinal Tract; Hospital Mortality; Intensive Care Units; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Critical Illness; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Infection Control
PubMed: 36286098
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.19709 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Feb 2023Group A streptococcus (Streptococcus pyogenes) is one of the most lethal bacterial pathogens of humans, with increased risk of progression to septic shock and multiorgan... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Group A streptococcus (Streptococcus pyogenes) is one of the most lethal bacterial pathogens of humans, with increased risk of progression to septic shock and multiorgan failure in the pregnant population. The objective of this study is to systematically review the outcomes and management strategies for pregnancy and puerperal group A streptococcus infections in an effort to provide further guidance for prevention and treatment of a rare but lethal infection worldwide.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A comprehensive search using puerperium and streptococcus pyogenes terms was completed across several registered databases. A total of 902 articles investigating pregnancy and puerperal group A streptococcus infection were identified, with 40 studies fulfilling inclusion criteria of original research articles in humans published from 1990 onwards reporting four or more unique cases of group A streptococcus in pregnancy or postpartum. This study was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42020198983.
RESULTS
A total of 1160 patients with pregnancy and puerperal group A streptococcus infection were identified. Most infections occurred postpartum (91.9%), with 4.7% reported antepartum and 0.6% intrapartum. Bacteremia was present in 49.0% of patients and endometritis in 45.9%. Puerperal sepsis was described in 28.2% of cases and progressed to streptococcal toxic shock syndrome in one-third of such cases. Overall, the case fatality ratio was 2.0%, with one-third of the deaths from antenatal cases including 3/22 (13.6%) cases of septic abortion and 10/46 (21.7%) antenatal cases of group A streptococcus infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Group A streptococcus infection remains an important contributor to pregnancy and puerperal morbidity and mortality. Early recognition, diagnosis and aggressive management are important for favorable outcomes given the serious risk of sepsis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Shock, Septic; Puerperal Infection; Streptococcus pyogenes; Sepsis; Postpartum Period; Streptococcal Infections; Parturition
PubMed: 36636775
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure. Thirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions. Due to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheters, Indwelling; Device Removal; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Urethra; Urinary Catheterization; Urinary Tract Infections; Urination
PubMed: 34184246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004011.pub4