title: Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  People admitted to intensive care units and those with chronic health care problems often require long-term vascular access. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for administering intravenous medications and blood sampling. CVADs are covered with a dressing and secured with an adhesive or adhesive tape to protect them from infection and reduce movement. Dressings are changed when they become soiled with blood or start to come away from the skin. Repeated removal and application of dressings can cause damage to the skin. The skin is an important barrier that protects the body against infection. Less frequent dressing changes may reduce skin damage, but it is unclear whether this practice affects the frequency of catheter-related infections.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections and other outcomes including pain and skin damage.
  
  
  METHODS
  In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trials registries for registered trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
  
  
  METHODS
  All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections on all patients in any healthcare setting.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used standard Cochrane review methodology. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We undertook meta-analysis where appropriate or otherwise synthesised data descriptively when heterogeneous.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included five RCTs (2277 participants) that compared different frequencies of CVAD dressing changes. The studies were all conducted in Europe and published between 1995 and 2009. Participants were recruited from the intensive care and cancer care departments of one children's and four adult hospitals. The studies used a variety of transparent dressings and compared a longer interval between dressing changes (5 to15 days; intervention) with a shorter interval between changes (2 to 5 days; control). In each study participants were followed up until the CVAD was removed or until discharge from ICU or hospital. Confirmed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI)One trial randomised 995 people receiving central venous catheters to a longer or shorter interval between dressing changes and measured CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.98) (low quality evidence). Suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection Two trials randomised a total of 151 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured suspected CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of suspected CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.10) (low quality evidence). All cause mortalityThree trials randomised a total of 896 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured all cause mortality. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of death from any cause between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25) (low quality evidence). Catheter-site infectionTwo trials randomised a total of 371 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured catheter-site infection. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk of catheter-site infection between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63) (low quality evidence). Skin damage One small trial (112 children) and three trials (1475 adults) measured skin damage. There was very low quality evidence for the effect of long intervals between dressing changes on skin damage compared with short intervals (children: RR of scoring ≥ 2 on the skin damage scale 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.68; data for adults not pooled). PainTwo studies involving 193 participants measured pain. It is unclear if there is a difference between long and short interval dressing changes on pain during dressing removal (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.38) (low quality evidence).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The best available evidence is currently inconclusive regarding whether longer intervals between CVAD dressing changes are associated with more or less catheter-related infection, mortality or pain than shorter intervals.
authors.affiliation: Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, Queensland, Australia, 4029.
authors.forename: Nicole C
authors.initials: NC
authors.lastname: Gavin
authors.forename: Joan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Webster
authors.forename: Raymond J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Chan
authors.forename: Claire M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Rickard
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001458:Bandages / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D055499:Catheter-Related Infections / Q000453:epidemiology* / Q000401:mortality; D002423:Cause of Death; D062905:Central Venous Catheters / Q000009:adverse effects*; D002648:Child; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D010147:Pain Measurement; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012867:Skin / Q000293:injuries; D053832:Surgical Tape / Q000009:adverse effects; D013997:Time Factors
references.citation: Nurs Manage. 2003 Jun;34(6):35-43
references.pmid: 12789052
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2002 Aug 1;20(15):3276-81
references.pmid: 12149302
references.citation: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1985 Jul-Aug;9(4):443-6
references.pmid: 3928918
references.citation: Semin Oncol. 1992 Oct;19(5):501-7
references.pmid: 1411648
references.citation: Hepatogastroenterology. 2011 Nov-Dec;58(112):1882-6
references.pmid: 22234057
references.citation: Haematologica. 2000 Mar;85(3):275-9
references.pmid: 10702816
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 1985 Sep;13(9):753-5
references.pmid: 4028771
references.citation: Skin Res Technol. 2004 Nov;10(4):271-7
references.pmid: 15536659
references.citation: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002 Aug 9;51(RR-10):1-29
references.pmid: 12233868
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 1995 Apr;29(4):275-86
references.pmid: 7658007
references.citation: Br J Nurs. 2010 Jan 28-Feb 10;19(2):78, 80, 82 passim
references.pmid: 20220644
references.citation: J Wound Care. 2008 Apr;17(4):157-8, 160-2
references.pmid: 18494433
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2000 Mar 7;132(5):391-402
references.pmid: 10691590
references.citation: Paediatr Nurs. 1996 Jul;8(6):21-3
references.pmid: 8718254
references.citation: Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2003 May-Jun;7(3):289-98
references.pmid: 12793335
references.citation: Surg Clin North Am. 1997 Jun;77(3):587-606
references.pmid: 9194882
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2014 Jan;86 Suppl 1:S1-70
references.pmid: 24330862
references.citation: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1988 Jul-Aug;12(4):365-70
references.pmid: 3138446
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 1993 Feb;23(2):113-21
references.pmid: 8097215
references.citation: Int J Radiat Biol. 1990 Apr;57(4):751-73
references.pmid: 1969905
references.citation: Nurs Stand. 2009 Oct 21-27;24(7):53-4, 56, 58 passim
references.pmid: 19927560
references.citation: Soins. 1994 Jun-Jul;(585-586):33-8
references.pmid: 7939877
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD003827
references.pmid: 14583995
references.citation: Med Sci Monit. 2009 Mar;15(3):CR107-10
references.pmid: 19247240
references.citation: J Wound Care. 2007 Mar;16(3):97-100
references.pmid: 17385583
references.citation: Nursing. 2003 Oct;33(10):58-63; quiz 63-4
references.pmid: 14528130
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 1989 Oct;160(4):720-2
references.pmid: 2794563
references.citation: J Wound Care. 1998 Feb 2;7(2):81-84
references.pmid: 27957902
references.citation: Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002 Apr;29(8):653-8
references.pmid: 12180109
references.citation: J Wound Care. 2001 Feb;10(2):7-10
references.pmid: 12964220
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
references.pmid: 19489710
references.citation: JAMA. 2009 Mar 25;301(12):1231-41
references.pmid: 19318651
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(10):1021-4
references.pmid: 2809651
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2002 Dec;30(12):2632-5
references.pmid: 12483050
references.citation: Nurs Stand. 2005 Mar 9-15;19(26):45-52
references.pmid: 15789996
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1997 Aug 15;127(4):257-66
references.pmid: 9265424
references.citation: Assist Inferm Ric. 2000 Apr-Jun;19(2):112-9
references.pmid: 11107366
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2012 Jun;40(6):1707-14
references.pmid: 22488003
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 1998 Nov;40(3):193-201
references.pmid: 9830590
references.citation: Nurs Times. 1986 Feb 12-18;82(7):40
references.pmid: 3083404
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
references.pmid: 12958120