We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
[Effectiveness of heparin versus 0.9% saline solution in maintaining the permeability of central venous catheters: a systematic review].
Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P 2015 December
OBJECTIVE: Determining which is the most effective solution (heparin flush compared to 0.9% saline flush) for reducing the risk of occlusions in central venous catheters (CVC) in adults.
METHOD: The systematic review followed the principles proposed by the Cochrane Handbook; critical analysis, extraction and synthesis of data were performed by two independent researchers; statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan program 5.2.8.
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were included and the results of the meta-analysis showed no difference (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.41-1.10; p=0.12). Analysis by subgroups showed that there was no difference in fully deployed CVC (RR=1.09, CI 95%=0.53-2.22; p=0.82); Multi-Lumen CVC showed beneficial effects in the heparin group (RR=0.53, CI 95%=0.29-0.95; p=0.03); in Double-Lumen CVC for hemodialysis (RR=1.18, CI 95%=0.08-17.82; p=0.90) and Peripherally inserted CVC (RR=0.14, CI 95%=0.01-2.60; p=0.19) also showed no difference.
CONCLUSION: Saline solution is sufficient for maintaining patency of the central venous catheter, preventing the risks associated with heparin administration.
METHOD: The systematic review followed the principles proposed by the Cochrane Handbook; critical analysis, extraction and synthesis of data were performed by two independent researchers; statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan program 5.2.8.
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were included and the results of the meta-analysis showed no difference (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.41-1.10; p=0.12). Analysis by subgroups showed that there was no difference in fully deployed CVC (RR=1.09, CI 95%=0.53-2.22; p=0.82); Multi-Lumen CVC showed beneficial effects in the heparin group (RR=0.53, CI 95%=0.29-0.95; p=0.03); in Double-Lumen CVC for hemodialysis (RR=1.18, CI 95%=0.08-17.82; p=0.90) and Peripherally inserted CVC (RR=0.14, CI 95%=0.01-2.60; p=0.19) also showed no difference.
CONCLUSION: Saline solution is sufficient for maintaining patency of the central venous catheter, preventing the risks associated with heparin administration.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app