Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Heparin‐bonded catheters for prolonging the patency of central venous catheters in children

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005983.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 25 February 2014see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Vascular Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Prakeshkumar S Shah

    Correspondence to: Department of Paediatrics and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada

    [email protected]

  • Niketa Shah

    Department of Pediatrics, New Jersey Hospital, Jersey City, USA

Contributions of authors

PS Shah selected trials, assessed trial quality, extracted data, wrote and edited the final review.
N Shah selected trials, assessed trial quality, extracted data and edited the final review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.

  • Department of Hematology and Oncology, Clinical Fellowship Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.

External sources

  • Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, The Scottish Government, UK.

    The PVD Group editorial base is supported by the Chief Scientist Office.

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr C Pierce for providing additional data on her group's study. We would also like to thank the Cochrane Consumer Network for providing a plain language summary and the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group for their assistance.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Feb 25

Heparin‐bonded catheters for prolonging the patency of central venous catheters in children

Review

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Niketa Shah

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005983.pub3

2007 Oct 17

Heparin‐bonded catheters for prolonging the patency of central venous catheters in children

Review

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Niketa Shah

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005983.pub2

2006 Apr 19

Heparin‐bonded catheters for prolonging the patency of central venous catheters in children

Protocol

Prakeshkumar S Shah, Niketa Shah

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005983

Differences between protocol and review

None

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram for updated review.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram for updated review.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, outcome: 1.1 Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, outcome: 1.1 Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, outcome: 1.8 Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, outcome: 1.8 Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 1 Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 1 Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 2 Catheter‐related thrombosis within one week of catheter insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 2 Catheter‐related thrombosis within one week of catheter insertion.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 3 Catheter‐related thrombosis after one week of insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 3 Catheter‐related thrombosis after one week of insertion.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 4 Occlusion of catheter within one week of catheter insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 4 Occlusion of catheter within one week of catheter insertion.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 5 Occlusion of catheter after one week of catheter insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 5 Occlusion of catheter after one week of catheter insertion.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 6 Catheter‐related blood stream infection.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 6 Catheter‐related blood stream infection.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 7 Colonization of catheter with microbes.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 7 Colonization of catheter with microbes.

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 8 Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters, Outcome 8 Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion.

Heparin‐bonded catheter compared with non‐heparin bonded catheter for central venous catheter in children

Participant or population: Children with central venous catheter

Settings: Hospital

Intervention: Heparin‐bonded central venous catheter

Comparison: Non‐heparin bonded central venous catheter

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Non heparin‐bonded catheter

Heparin‐bonded catheter

Days of catheter patency

median of 6 days

median of 7 days

200 (1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Only one study reported this outcome

Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay

175 per 1000

59 per 1000

(2 to 1344)

RR 0.34 (0.01 to 7.68)

287 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate

Occlusion of catheter within one week of catheter insertion

78 per 1000

5 per 1000

(0 to 83)

RR 0.06 (0.00 to 1.07)

200 (1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Only one study reported this outcome

Catheter‐related blood stream infection and CVC‐related colonization

184 per 1000

11 per 1000

(2 to 75)

RR 0.06 (0.01 to 0.41)

200 (1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

Only one study reported this outcome

Side effects: Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion

133 per 1000

97 per 1000

(50 to 85)

RR 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39)

287 (2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

No systematic evaluation of thrombocytopenia was conducted in either study

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk Ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Catheter‐related thrombosis at any time during catheter stay Show forest plot

2

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.01, 7.68]

2 Catheter‐related thrombosis within one week of catheter insertion Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Catheter‐related thrombosis after one week of insertion Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Occlusion of catheter within one week of catheter insertion Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Occlusion of catheter after one week of catheter insertion Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Catheter‐related blood stream infection Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Colonization of catheter with microbes Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Thrombocytopenia after catheter insertion Show forest plot

2

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.38, 1.39]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Heparin‐bonded catheter versus non‐heparin bonded catheters