ObjectiveTo explore the risk factors for central venous catheter (CVC)-related infections and its Countermeasures, as CVC is an important vascular access for blood purification and is widely used in clinical applications, but catheter-related infection is one of the common severe complications. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 725 patients with complicated infections of indwelling center venous double lumen catheter treated between January 2009 and December 2012. ResultsAmong all 725 cases, 15 had catheter-related infection. There were one case of subcutaneous tunnel infection (staphylococcus aureus by the secretion culture, negative for blood culture), and 14 cases of positive blood culture including 9 staphylococcus aureus cases, 3 escherichia coli cases, 1 colorless bacillus case and 1 stenotrophomonas maltophilia case. Eight cases were cured by antibiotic therapy while antibiotics were invalid in the other 7 cases resulting in tube withdrawing. ConclusionThe central venous catheter-related infections are related to medical service ability, catheter indwelling position, indwelling time, hemodialysis adequacy, patients' general condition and personal hygiene. Taking relative measures in view of each factor is the key to prevent infections.
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.