Research Information System
European Journal of Internal Medicine, vol.99, 2022 (SCI-Expanded)
© 2022 European Federation of Internal MedicineObjectives: To evaluate the evidence concerning the effectiveness of antiseptic barrier caps vs. manual disinfection in preventing central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). Methods: The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021259582). PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched from 2011 to 2021. Randomized-controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies on hospitalized patients of any age were included. Results: Fourteen studies were included. Compared with manual disinfection, antiseptic barrier caps significantly reduced CLABSI rate per 1000 line-days (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD]: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.03 to -0.01) and number of CLABSI per patient (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.41–0.89). Subgroup analysis showed that antiseptic barrier caps were more effective in reducing CLABSI rate per 1000 line-days in ICU (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.03 to -0.01) and non-ICU patients (SMD: -0.03; 95%CI: -0.05 to -0.01), adults (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.04 to -0.01), as in observational studies (SMD: -0.02; 95%CI: -0.02 to -0.01). Antiseptic barrier caps also significantly reduce CLABSI risk in ICU patients (RR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.42–1.00), adults (RR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.29–0.86), and observational studies (RR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.32–0.91). No differences were found when only children or RCTs were taken into account. Median cost savings amongst studies were $21,890 [IQR 16,350–45,000] per CLABSI. Conclusions: Antiseptic barrier caps appear to be effective in reducing CLABSI. The real-world impact needs to be confirmed by RCTs.