RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The measurement and identification of plasma biomarkers can support the estimation of risk and diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the association between the levels of potential biomarkers that reflect the activation of the blood system, long-term vascular complications, inflammatory system, and the occurrence of PICC-related DVT. METHODS: Seven electronic databases (Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ERIC) were searched to identify literature published until December 2022. Studies were required to report: (I) adult and pediatric patients, outpatient or admitted to clinical, surgical, or ICU with PICC; (II) patients with PICC-related DVT and patients without PICC-related DVT as a comparator; and (III) at least one biomarker available. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Study precision was evaluated by using a funnel plot for platelets level. We provided a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of the findings on the biomarkers' outcomes of the studies. We pooled the results using random effects meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v5.4. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018108871). RESULTS: Of the 3564 studies identified (after duplication removal), 28 were included. PICC-related DVT was associated with higher D-dimers (0.37 µg/mL, 95% CI 0.02, 0.72; p = 0.04, I2 = 92%; p for heterogeneity < 0.00001) and with higher platelets (8.76 × 109/L, 95% CI 1.62, 15.91; p = 0.02, I2 = 41%; p for heterogeneity = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of D-dimer and platelet were associated with DVT in patients with PICC. However, biomarkers such as APTT, fibrinogen, FDP, glucose, hemoglobin, glycated hemoglobin, INR, prothrombin time, prothrombin fragment 1.2, the thrombin-antithrombin complex, and WBC were not related to the development of DVT associated with PICC.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Little is known about peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use, appropriateness and device outcomes in Brazil. METHODS: We conducted an observational, prospective, cohort study spanning 16 Brazilian hospitals from October 2018 to August 2020. Patients ≥18 years receiving a PICC were included. PICC placement variables were abstracted from medical records. PICC-related major (deep vein thrombosis (DVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter occlusion) and minor complications were collected. Appropriateness was evaluated using the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). Devices were considered inappropriate if they were in place for <5 days, were multi-lumen, and/or were placed in patients with a creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. PICCs considered appropriate met none of these criteria. Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics assessed the association between appropriateness and major complications. RESULTS: Data from 12 725 PICCs were included. Mean patient age was 66.4±19 years and 51.0% were female. The most common indications for PICCs were intravenous antibiotics (81.1%) and difficult access (62.7%). Most PICCs (72.2%) were placed under ultrasound guidance. The prevalence of complications was low: CLABSI (0.9%); catheter-related DVT (1.0%) and reversible occlusion (2.5%). Of the 12 725 devices included, a total of 7935 (62.3%) PICCs were inappropriate according to MAGIC. With respect to individual metrics for appropriateness, 17.0% were placed for <5 days, 60.8% were multi-lumen and 11.3% were in patients with creatinine >2.0 mg/dL. After adjusting for patient and hospital-level characteristics, multi-lumen PICCs considered inappropriate were associated with greater odds of major complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of PICCs in Brazilian hospitals appears to be safe and comparable with North America. However, opportunities to improve appropriateness remain. Future studies examining barriers and facilitators to improving device use in Brazil would be welcomed.
Assuntos
Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter , Cateterismo Venoso Central , Cateterismo Periférico , Cateteres Venosos Centrais , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Brasil/epidemiologia , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/epidemiologia , Cateterismo Venoso Central/métodos , Cateterismo Periférico/efeitos adversos , Catéteres , Cateteres Venosos Centrais/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Coortes , Creatinina , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Effective health system interventions may help address the disproportionate burden of diabetes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We assessed the impact of health system interventions to improve outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes in LMICs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, African Index Medicus, LILACS, and Global Index Medicus from inception of each database through February 24, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of health system interventions targeting adults with type 2 diabetes in LMICs. Eligible studies reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: glycemic change, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness. We conducted a meta-analysis for the glycemic outcome of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). GRADE and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care methods were used to assess risk of bias for the glycemic outcome and to prepare a summary of findings table. Of the 12,921 references identified in searches, we included 39 studies in the narrative review of which 19 were cluster RCTs and 20 were individual RCTs. The greatest number of studies were conducted in the East Asia and Pacific region (n = 20) followed by South Asia (n = 7). There were 21,080 total participants enrolled across included studies and 10,060 total participants in the meta-analysis of HbA1c when accounting for the design effect of cluster RCTs. Non-glycemic outcomes of mortality, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness had sparse data availability that precluded quantitative pooling. In the meta-analysis of HbA1c from 35 of the included studies, the mean difference was -0.46% (95% CI -0.60% to -0.31%, I2 87.8%, p < 0.001) overall, -0.37% (95% CI -0.64% to -0.10%, I2 60.0%, n = 7, p = 0.020) in multicomponent clinic-based interventions, -0.87% (-1.20% to -0.53%, I2 91.0%, n = 13, p < 0.001) in pharmacist task-sharing studies, and -0.27% (-0.50% to -0.04%, I2 64.1%, n = 7, p = 0.010) in trials of diabetes education or support alone. Other types of interventions had few included studies. Eight studies were at low risk of bias for the summary assessment of glycemic control, 15 studies were at unclear risk, and 16 studies were at high risk. The certainty of evidence for glycemic control by subgroup was moderate for multicomponent clinic-based interventions but was low or very low for other intervention types. Limitations include the lack of consensus definitions for health system interventions, differences in the quality of underlying studies, and sparse data availability for non-glycemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that health system interventions for type 2 diabetes may be effective in improving glycemic control in LMICs, but few studies are available from rural areas or low- or lower-middle-income countries. Multicomponent clinic-based interventions had the strongest evidence for glycemic benefit among intervention types. Further research is needed to assess non-glycemic outcomes and to study implementation in rural and low-income settings.