↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial lock solutions for preventing catheter-related infections in haemodialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antimicrobial lock solutions for preventing catheter-related infections in haemodialysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010597.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria C Arechabala, Maria I Catoni, Juan Carlos Claro, Noelia P Rojas, Miriam E Rubio, Mario A Calvo, Luz M Letelier

Abstract

Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) through a central venous catheter (CVC) are exposed to several risks, being a catheter-related infection (CRI) and a CVC lumen thrombosis among the most serious. Standard of care regarding CVCs includes their sealing with heparin lock solutions to prevent catheter lumen thrombosis. Other lock solutions to prevent CRI, such as antimicrobial lock solutions, have proven useful with antibiotics solutions, but not as yet for non-antibiotic antimicrobial solutions. Furthermore, it is uncertain if these solutions have a negative effect on thrombosis incidence. To assess the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial (antibiotic, non-antibiotic, or both) catheter lock solutions for preventing CRI in participants undergoing HD with a CVC. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 18 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included all randomised or quasi-randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing antimicrobial (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) lock solutions to standard lock solutions, in participants using a CVC for HD, without language restriction. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, and two additional authors assessed for risk of bias and extracted data. We expressed results as rate ratios (RR) per 1000 catheter-days or 1000 dialysis sessions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Thirty-nine studies, enrolling 4216 participants, were included in this review, however only 30 studies, involving 3392 participants, contained enough data to be meta-analysed. Risk of bias was low or unclear for most domains in the majority of the included studies.Studies compared antimicrobial lock solutions (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) to standard sealing solutions (usually heparin) of the CVC for HD. Fifteen studies used antibiotic lock solutions, 21 used non-antibiotic antimicrobial lock solutions, and 4 used both (antibiotic and non-antibiotic) lock solutions. Studies reported the incidence of CRI, catheter thrombosis, or both.Antimicrobial lock solutions probably reduces CRI per 1000 catheter-days (27 studies: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.53; I2= 54%; low certainty evidence), however antimicrobial lock solutions probably makes little or no difference to the risk of thrombosis per 1000 catheter days (14 studies: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; I2= 83%; very low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of antibiotic and the combination of both lock solutions showed that both probably reduced CRI per 1000 catheter-days (13 studies: RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.42; I2= 47%) and risk of thrombosis per 1000 catheter-days (4 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.49; I2= 0%), respectively. Non-antibiotic antimicrobial lock solutions probably reduced CRI per 1000 catheter-days for tunnelled CVC (9 studies: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91) but probably made little or no difference with non-tunnelled CVC (4 studies: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.81). Subgroup analyses showed that antibiotic (5 studies: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.38), non-antibiotic (8 studies: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.66), and the combination of both lock solutions (3 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.81) made little or no difference to thrombosis per 1000 catheter-days compared to control lock solutions. Antibiotic antimicrobial and combined (antibiotic-non antibiotic) lock solutions decreased the incidence of CRI compared to control lock solutions, whereas non-antibiotic lock solutions reduce CRI only for tunnelled CVC. The effect on thrombosis incidence is uncertain for all antimicrobial lock solutions. Our confidence in the evidence is low and very low; therefore, better-designed studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial lock solutions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Other 5 10%
Unspecified 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 59%
Unspecified 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,614,470
of 13,568,805 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,282
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,852
of 270,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,568,805 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.