BackgroundCatheter-related blood-stream infections (CRBSIs) are the most common complication when using central venous catheters (CVCs). Whether coating CVCs under bundles could further reduce the incidence of CRBSIs is unclear. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of implementing the use of bundles with antimicrobial-coated CVCs for preventing catheter-related blood-stream infections.MethodsIn this systematic review and network meta-analyses, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library in addition to the EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for studies published before July 2017. The primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs per 1000 catheter-days, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of catheter colonization.ResultsTwenty-three studies revealed significant differences in the rate of CRBSIs per 1000 catheter-days between antimicrobial-impregnated and standard CVCs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.91, p = 0.008). Thirty-three trials were included containing 10,464 patients who received one of four types of CVCs. Compared with a standard catheter, chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine- and antibiotic-coated catheters were associated with lower numbers of CRBSIs per 1000 catheter-days (ORs and 95% CrIs: 0.64 (0.40–0.955) and 0.53 (0.25–0.95), respectively) and a lower incidence of catheter colonization (ORs and 95% CrIs: 0.44 (0.34–0.56) and 0.30 (0.20–0.46), respectively).ConclusionsOutcomes are superior for catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine or other antibiotics than for standard catheters in preventing CRBSIs and catheter colonization under bundles. Compared with silver ion-impregnated CVCs, chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine antiseptic catheters resulted in fewer cases of microbial colonization of the catheter but did not reduce CRBSIs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0416-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

There was insufficient evidence to definitively recommend the LAX, SAX, or OAX approach for patients undergoing ultrasound-guided vascular access cannulation.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the respiratory parameters that influence the exhaled breath temperature (EBT) and the feasibility of using the latter to monitor the core temperature under general endotracheal anesthesia. A total of 20 patients undergoing abdominal surgery were included in the present study. At the first stage of the experiment, the respiratory rate was adjusted, while the other respiratory parameters [tidal volume, inspiratory and expiratory time ratio (TI:TE), and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP)] were maintained at a constant level. At the second stage, the tidal volume was adjusted, while the other respiratory parameters were maintained at a constant level. At the third stage, the TI:TE was adjusted, while the other parameters were maintained at a constant level. At the fourth stage, PEEP was adjusted, while the other parameters were maintained at a constant level. In each experiment, the EBT, the maximum temperature of exhaled air in each min, the inhaled air temperature and the nasopharyngeal temperature (T nose) were recorded every min. During the first stage of the experiment, no significant difference was noted in the EBT at different levels of respiratory rate. During the second, third and fourth stage, no significant difference was noted in the EBT at different tidal volumes, TI:TE and PEEP, respectively. The EBT was significantly correlated with the T nose. Overall, the present study demonstrated that the EBT of patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general endotracheal anesthesia was not affected by the examined respiratory parameters and that it could be considered a feasible method of monitoring core temperature.

No abstract