IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0296723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk factors of central catheter bloodstream infections in intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Huayong Huang
  • Qiaoling Chang
  • Yanhui Zhou
  • Li Liao

Abstract

Background: Central catheter bloodstream infections (CRBSI) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections. However, few factors are generally accepted and some studies have conflicting finding about some factors, possibly caused by limitation associated with an individual study. This study was to identify risk factors for CRBSI in intensive care units. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of science and EMBASE databases and the 4 top Chinese-language databases, including WanFang data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) as of July 2023. Case control and cohort studies were included. Two authors independently screened the literature and evaluated the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The pooled effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR), and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The Cochrane Q (χ2) and I2 tests were used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and each risk factor was tested for its robustness using fixed- or random-effects models. Findings: A total of 32 studies enrolled, among which eleven factors were identified, they were divided into two categories: modifiable and unmodifiable factors. Modifiable factors: duration of catheterization (≥ 5d) (OR: 2.07, 95%CI: 1.41–3.03), duration of catheterization (≥ 7d) (OR: 3.62, 95%CI: 2.65–4.97), duration of catheterization (≥ 14d)(OR: 4.85, 95%CI: 3.35–7.01), total parenteral nutrition (OR: 2.27,95%CI: 1.56–3.29), use of multiple-lumen catheters(OR: 3.41, 95%CI: 2.27–5.11), times of tube indwelling (OR: 3.50, 95%CI: 2.93–4.17), length of ICU stay (OR: 4.05, 95%CI: 2.41–6.80), the position of indwelling(OR: 2.41, 95%CI: 2.03–2.85); Unmodifiable factors: APACHEII scores (OR: 1.84, 95%CI: 1.54–2.20), Age≥ 60 years old (OR: 2.19, 95%CI: 1.76–2.73), the extensive use of antibiotic (OR: 3.54, 95%CI: 1.65–7.61), Diabetes mellitus (OR: 3.06, 95%CI: 2.56–3.66), Immunosuppression (OR: 2.87, 95%CI: 2.08–3.95). Conclusions: Effective interventions targeting the above modifiable factors may reduce the risk of developing CRBSI in ICU and improve the clinical outcome of patients. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Huayong Huang & Qiaoling Chang & Yanhui Zhou & Li Liao, 2024. "Risk factors of central catheter bloodstream infections in intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0296723
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296723
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296723&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0296723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0296723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.