Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library
2006, Issue 2
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHATS NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
8
8
8
9
10
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
[Intervention Review]
Contact address: Jann P Foster, School of Nursing & Midwifery/Sydney Medical School & Sydney Nursing School, University of
Western Sydney/University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. j.foster@uws.edu.au. jann.foster@sydney.edu.au.
Editorial group: Cochrane Neonatal Group.
Publication status and date: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 2, 2013.
Review content assessed as up-to-date: 9 June 2011.
Citation: Foster JP, Richards R, Showell MG. Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005248. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005248.pub2.
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ABSTRACT
Background
Venous access is an essential part of caring for the sick neonate; however, problems such as contamination of fluids with bacteria,
endotoxins and particulates have been associated with intravenous infusion therapy. Intravenous in-line filters claim to be an effective
strategy for the removal of bacteria, endotoxins and particulates associated with intravenous therapy in adults and are increasingly being
recommended for use in neonates.
Objectives
To determine the effect of in-line filters on intravenous lines on morbidity and mortality in neonates.
Search methods
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Group. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966
to April 2, 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to April 2, 2011), CINAHL (from 1982 to April 2, 2011) and the Cochrane Central Register
of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2011). There was no language restriction. Further searching included
cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching.
Selection criteria
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in
neonates were included in the review.
Data collection and analysis
The procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) were followed throughout.
Titles and abstracts identified from the search were checked by the review authors. The full text of all studies of possible relevance were
obtained. The review authors independently assessed the trials for their methodological quality and subsequent inclusion in the review.
Authors were contacted for further information as needed.
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Dichotomous data is expressed as relative risk
and 95% confidence intervals, and risk difference and 95% confidence intervals.
Main results
There were four eligible studies that recruited a total of 704 neonates. This review found no significant effect of in-line filters in any
of the reported outcomes of overall mortality, proven and suspect septicaemia, local phlebitis and thrombus, necrotizing enterocolitis,
duration of cannula patency, length of stay in hospital, number of catheters inserted and financial costs.
Authors conclusions
There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of intravenous in-line filters to prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.
BACKGROUND
drome (Parsons 1989), septic shock (Glauser 1991), multiple organ failure, endotoxic shock and systemic inflammatory response
syndrome (Suffredini 1989a; Casale 1990; Glauser 1991). Cardiovascular changes such as increased heart rate, decreased vascular resistance and depressed left ventricular function (Suffredini 1989b)
and increased intestinal permeability (ODwyer 1988) have also
been reported. Periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) is an ischaemic
lesion of the periventricular white matter that is primarily seen
in premature neonates (Hill 1992). Animal studies have demonstrated the development of PVL in the brains of newborn kittens
following injection of endotoxins (Gilles 1977) and it has been
postulated that endotoxins may be involved in the pathogenesis of
a proportion of cases of PVL in the human neonate (Volpe 2001).
Particulate matter may cause localized phlebitis (Marshall 1987).
The duration of cannulation has been found to contribute to the
development of infusion-related phlebitis (Maki 1991), and this
may require the cannula to be replaced. Frequent cannula change
is an added cost to treatment and may cause the patient pain and
distress (Chee 2002).
Adverse systemic effects of particulate matter including granulomata formation in the lung (Marshall 1987) and ischaemic necrosis, are a common finding in necrotizing enterocolitis (Ballance
1990). Garvan examined IV fluids available in Australia, England,
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Europe and the United States of America for the presence of particulates. Microscopic analysis found rubber particles, crystals, cellulose fibers, fungal spores, starch granules and a crustacean claw
(Garvan 1964). More recent studies found glass fragments from
the opening of glass ampoules (Shaw 1985), and particles from
rubber stoppers and intravenous equipment (Kirkpatrick 1988).
Inorganic elements such as calcium, silicon, aluminium, lead and
iron, that may have originated from the manufacture and packaging processes (Backhouse 1987), have also been found. Positivelycharged in-line filters are reported to be effective in the retention
of endotoxins (Barnett 1996).
certain drugs such as antibiotics may be retained in the filters causing a reduction in potency. There are no known adverse effects
from the use of IV in-line filters. If the filters block, they need to be
changed leading to the increased manipulation of the IV administration set creating a potential for the introduction of contamination. However, blocking of the filter is claimed to be indicative of
a problem such as microprecipitation that is a potentially harmful
source of particulate matter (Bethune 2001). Friedland (Friedland
1985) also argued that filters could not reduce the risk of infection
caused by contaminants entering the line below the in-line filter. A
study by Newell (Newell 1998) found no difference in the rate of
septicaemia between children in an oncology unit who had filters
fitted and those who did not. They concluded from their results
that the added cost of using IV in-line filters was not warranted.
In-line IV filters are also increasingly being recommended for use
in neonates (Kunac 1999; Bethune 2001). Therefore, the aim of
this review is to systematically assess the evidence on the effectiveness of in-line filters on intravenous lines in neonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of in-line filters on intravenous lines on
morbidity and mortality in neonates.
Types of studies
METHODS
Types of participants
Neonates with intravenous infusions who were randomised in the
neonatal period (< 29 days post delivery).
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Types of interventions
In-line intravenous filter versus placebo or nothing.
Electronic searches
Searches were made of the electronic databases MEDLINE (from
1966 to April 2, 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to April 2, 2011),
CINAHL (from 1982 to April 2, 2011), the Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library,
Issue 3, 2011). There was no language restriction. The following
MeSH terms were used: infant OR newborn AND text terms intravenous catheter OR infusion filter OR filtration OR in-line
filter OR infusions OR endotoxins OR bacterial OR particulate contamination, OR phlebitis OR infection, OR intravenous infusion.
Searching other resources
We examined the references in all studies identified as potentially
relevant. We searched the abstracts from the annual meetings of the
Pediatric Academic Societies (1993 to 2010), the European Society
for Pediatric Research (1995 to 2010), the UK Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health (2000 to 2010) and the Perinatal
The criteria and standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used to assess the methodological quality of any
included trials. Additional information from the trial authors was
requested to clarify methodology and results as necessary. The following issues were evaluated and reported in the Risk of Bias tables:
(1) Sequence generation: Was the allocation sequence adequately
generated? We categorised the method used to generate the allocation sequence as:
- low risk (any random process e.g. random number table; computer random number generator);
- high risk (any non random process e.g. odd or even date of birth;
patient case-record number);
- unclear risk.
(2) Allocation concealment:Was allocation adequately concealed?
We categorised the method used to conceal the allocation sequence
as:
- low risk (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively
numbered sealed opaque envelopes);
- high risk (open random allocation; unsealed or non-opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth);
- unclear risk.
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
(3) Blinding: Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented at study entry, during the study, and at the time
of outcome assessment? We assessed blinding separately for different outcomes and categorised the methods as low risk, high risk
or unclear risk for participants, clinicians and caregivers, and outcome assessors.
(4) Incomplete outcome data:Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? We described the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis for each outcome
and any reasons for attrition or exclusion where reported. We assessed whether missing data were balanced across groups or were
related to outcomes. Where sufficient information was reported
or supplied by the trial authors, we re-included missing data in the
analyses. We categorised completeness as:
- low risk (< 20% missing data);
- high risk ( 20% missing data);
- unclear risk.
RESULTS
Description of studies
(5) Selective reporting bias. Were reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? We aimed to assess whether
methods were:
- low risk (clear that all of the trials pre-specified outcomes and all
expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported);
- high risk (where not all the trials pre-specified outcomes have
been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes were not
pre-specified; outcomes of interest are reported incompletely and
so cannot be used; study fails to include results of a key outcome
that would have been expected to have been reported);
- unclear risk.
van den Hoogen 2006: The most recent study by van den Hoogen
2006 evaluated the effect of using 0.22 micron Pall Posidyne
ELD96T M in-line filters versus no filter in 442 neonates on mortality, sepsis, phlebitis, number of catheter days and financial cost.
The manufacturer recommends using this filter for the elimination of particles, microbes, air and endotoxins. All IV fluids in
the study group (with the exception of lipids which were administered through a 1.2 micron LipiporT M filter) were given through
the 0.22 micron in-line filter, and the administration sets were
changed every four days. The intravenous sets in the control group
and the LipiporT M filters (that are not able to retain endotoxins)
were changed daily. The filters were positioned at the distal end
of the IV-administration catheter after a series of stopcocks. The
authors noted that this construction guaranteed that all clear fluids including IV medication were administered via the filter. The
LipiporT M filter was placed distally to the 0.22 micron in-line filter. No information on cannula site preparation was provided.
van Lingen 2004 studied 88 neonates to evaluate the effectiveness
of the 0.22 micron Pall Posidyne ELD96T M in-line filters with
no filters to prevent complications such as bacteraemia, phlebitis,
Assessment of heterogeneity
If more than one trial was included in a meta-analysis, we examined
the treatment effects of individual trials and
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
extravasation, thrombosis, septicaemia and necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates who required an intravenous catheter. van Lingen
2004 also evaluated the economic impact of the use of IV inline filters. All IV fluids in the study group (with the exception
of lipids, blood or blood products) were given through the in-line
filter and the administration sets were changed every four days.
The intravenous sets in the control group were changed daily. In
the study group, bacterial cultures were obtained at the time of
change from both sides of the discarded filter and from the lipid
solution. For the control group, bacterial cultures were obtained
from the IV fluids every four days. In addition, catheter tips were
cultured after removal. Blood was cultured only when sepsis was
suspected. No information was provided on cannula site preparation. van Lingen 2004 reported that four patients in the control
group died from causes unrelated to catheter usage i.e. NEC,
pulmonary bleeding, severe intraventricular haemorrhage, circulatory insufficiency. However, these four neonates were included
in the mortality outcome in this review.
Thomas 1989 assessed the effect of in-line filters on duration of
cannula patency in 63 neonates requiring IV fluids. Thomas 1989
used a 0.2 micron CathivexT M filter that is only recommended for
the removal of particulate and air. The filters in the study group
were positioned before the cannulae, except where fluids such as
blood, plasma protein fraction, fresh frozen plasma or emulsions
were being administered. On these occasions, the filter was positioned upstream of the three way tap used for adding such fluids
to the primary infusion line. In the control group, an extension set
was substituted for the filter. This was included as it provided an
equal number of connections and manipulations in the lines for
both groups. The intravenous lines and filters were changed every
24 hours in the control and study groups. Cannula site preparation was limited to swabbing the skin with isopropyl alcohol.
Following cannulation, the site was covered with a sterile dressing.
No extra cannula site care was performed (such as application of
antibiotic cream or spray) during the study. Cannula life was assessed by duration of patency and volume of IV fluid passed by
the site. Nursing staff observations of the infusion site were used
to subjectively determine the end point. Nursing staff routinely
checked and recorded the condition of the IV cannula sites and
the volume of fluid delivered every hour. No information was provided on the length of the study period.
Bennion 1991 assessed the effect of IV in-line filters on serum
gentamicin level results, incidence of necrosed areas at the infiltration site and cost of administration sets with and without an IV
in-line filter in 111 neonates. Bennion 1991 used a 0.22 micron
Pall Posidyne ELD96T M that was used by van Lingen 2004 and
van den Hoogen 2006. The intravenous sets were changed every
four days in the treatment group and daily in the control group. A
record of the administration sets was made each day together with
serum gentamicin level results for each baby and any necrosed
areas that developed. Serum gentamicin levels were checked on
the third dose of the antibiotic. No information was provided on
Excluded studies
There were no excluded studies.
Allocation
Only the study of van Lingen 2004 was randomised (computer-generated randomisation with sealed numbered envelopes
that were opened on admission of each neonate). Three studies
(Bennion 1991; Thomas 1989; van den Hoogen 2006) were quasirandomised (alternate allocation).
Blinding
A placebo was not used in any of the four studies and, therefore,
there was no blinding of the intervention. Outcome measurements
were not blinded in any of the studies.
Effects of interventions
In-line intravenous filter vs. placebo
No studies were identified for this comparison.
In-line intravenous filter vs. no filter
Four studies were identified for this comparison (van den Hoogen
2006; van Lingen 2004; Bennion 1991; Thomas 1989).
Primary outcomes:
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
materials in the in-line filter group would have been much lower
at 107.73 Euros over the four day period, less half that in the
control group. This study also found that the time necessary for
changing the IV-administration sets was significantly longer in the
non-filter group: the mean time was 14 plus +/- 7 minutes in the
non-filter group, compared to 10 +/- 5 minutes in the filter group
(P=0.000).
For the van Lingen 2004 study, costs attributable to patients in
both control and study groups were calculated on a cost of disposables basis during a standard eight day stay. Additionally, the time
taken for line change was calculated by direct assessment, and an
estimate of the relative nursing costs was built into the analysis. In
the study group, filters and intravenous sets were changed every 96
hours and in the control group, the intravenous sets were changed
daily. However, unlike the van den Hoogen 2006 study, lipid filters
were not included in the calculation. The total cost per neonate
in the control group was 85.75 Euro and for the study group was
37.44 Euro showing a saving of 48.31 Euros per neonate over a
period of eight days.
The Bennion 1991 study reported the average cost of an administration system as approximately 17.28 Pounds per day for the control group compared to 8.84 Pounds per day in the study group
(showing a daily saving of 8.44 Pounds in the treatment group).
This was calculated by dividing the total cost of the equipment
used by the number of cot days occupied by infants in each group.
The intravenous sets were changed every 96 hours in the control
group and in the control group, the intravenous sets were changed
daily.
12) Adverse affects reported in the trials
In the Bennion 1991 study, precipitate was found to clog the filter
and the flow of intravenous fluids. The IV in-line filter also became
blocked in one patient in the van den Hoogen 2006 study that
was reported to be possibly due to the administration of very high
glucose concentrations (50%).
There was no data available to be able to perform subgroup analysis on type of filter, gestation, type of intravenous line, type of
intravenous fluid.
proven sepsis, unproven sepsis and NEC. This demonstrated a reduction of 62% in risk of adverse outcome in the treatment group
[RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.77), RD -0.30 (95% CI -0.48 to 0.11)].
Cost savings were reported by Bennion 1991; van Lingen 2004
and van den Hoogen 2006. We found no data available from randomised controlled trials that compared periventricular leukomalacia, incidence of systemic thrombus and neurodevelopmental
outcomes.
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice
There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of intravenous
in-line filters to prevent morbidity or mortality in neonates. However, cost savings were found with the less frequent changing of the
intravenous sets when a 0.2 micron IV in-line filter that removes
endotoxins was used without an increase in adverse outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editorial support of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group has
been funded with Federal funds from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human
Services, USA, under Contract NO. HHSN267200603418C.
REFERENCES
Additional references
Allcutt 1983
Allcutt DA, Lort D, McCollum CN. Final inline filtration
for intravenous infusions: a prospective hospital study.
British Journal of Surgery 1983;70:11113.
Backhouse 1987
Backhouse CM, Ball PR, Booth S, Kelshaw MA, Potter SR,
McCollum CN. Particulate contaminants of intravenous
medications and infusions. Journal of Pharmacy and
Pharmacology 1987;39:2415.
Ball 2003
Ball PA. Intravenous in-line filters: filtering the evidence.
Current Opinion in Cinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
2003;6:31925.
Hill 1992
Hill A, Volpe JJ. Textbook of Neonatology. 2nd Edition.
London: Churchill Livingstone, 1992.
Ballance 1990
Ballance WA, Dahms BB, Shenker N, Kliegman RM.
Pathology of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: a ten year
experience. Journal of Pediatrics 1990;117:S6S13.
Kirkpatrick 1988
Kirkpatrick C. Particulate matter in intravenous fluids: The
importance for medicine. Krankenhauspharmazie 1988;9:
48790.
Barnett 1996
Barnett MI, Cosslett AG. Endotoxin retention capabilities
of positively charged nylon and positively charged
polysulphone membrane intravenous filters. Pharmaceutical
Sciences 1996;2:31920.
Koekenberg 1983
Koekenberg H. A case for I.V. filtration. Infusion 1983;7:
7682.
Bethune 2001
Bethune K, Allwood M, Grainger C, Wormleighton C,
British Pharmaceutical Nutrition Group Working Party.
Use of filters during the preparation and administration of
parenteral nutrition: position paper and guidelines prepared
Kunac 1999
Kunac D, Ball P, Broadbent R. In-line intravenous filtration
in neonates-help not hindrance. Australian Journal of
Hospital Pharmacy 1999;29:32127.
Maki 1991
Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related
phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
10
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Unblinded
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11
Bennion 1991
(Continued)
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Thomas 1989
Methods
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Unblinded
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
12
Thomas 1989
(Continued)
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Participants
442 neonates requiring IV fluids via an umbilical or percutaneous central venous catheter
or a catheter inserted in the subclavian or femoral vein (CVC) . All neonates admitted
to the NICU and required fluids via a central venous catheter were eligible.
Gestation - 25-43 weeks
Birthweight 600 - 4640 grams
Interventions
Outcomes
1. Mortality
2. Phlebitis: defined as signs of local infection and a positive culture from the infected
site
2. Proven Sepsis: defined as occurrence of clinical signs of local infection and a positive
blood culture
3. Number of catheter days
4. Length of stay in hospital
5. Financial costs
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias
Authors judgement
High risk
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Unblinded
13
(Continued)
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
1. Phlebitis
2. Extravasation
3. Thrombosis
4. Proven Sepsis: characteristic clinical symptoms positive blood culture, and abnormal
tests, (leucocytosis, leucopenia, granulocytopenia CRP> 10mg/l)
5. Unproven sepsis: characteristic clinical symptoms and negative blood culture and
abnormal tests
6. NEC
7. Duration of cannula patency
7. Number of catheter insertions
8. Duration of catheter insertion
Secondary septicaemia
Notes
Risk of bias
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14
(Continued)
Bias
Authors judgement
Low risk
Unblinded
Low risk
Other bias
Low risk
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
15
No. of
studies
No. of
participants
2
2
3
1
1
1
530
530
641
88
88
88
1 Mortality
2 Proven Septicaemia
3 Localised Phlebitis
4 Suspected Septicaemia
5 Localised Thrombi
6 Proven Necrotizing Enterocolitis
Statistical method
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Effect size
0.87 [0.52, 1.47]
0.86 [0.59, 1.27]
1.22 [0.40, 3.77]
0.57 [0.18, 1.81]
0.2 [0.01, 4.05]
0.2 [0.01, 4.05]
WHATS NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 9 June 2011.
Date
Event
Description
20 January 2013
Amended
HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2005
Review first published: Issue 2, 2006
Date
Event
Description
2 April 2011
This updates the review Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity
and mortality in neonates (Foster 2006).
Updated search in April 2011 did not identify any new studies
Conclusions remain the same.
15 February 2011
Amended
4 December 2008
This updates the review Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity
and mortality in neonates published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2,
2006 (Foster 2006).
One eligible trial was found and has been included in this review
18 September 2008
Amended
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
16
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
Jann Foster (JF), Robyn Richards (RR) and Marian Showell (MS) independently assessed studies for inclusion in this review.
JF and RR wrote the review with the assistance of MS.
JF acts as guarantor for the review.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
NSW Pregnancy and Newborn Services Network, Sydney, Australia.
External sources
No sources of support supplied
INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Drug Contamination; Catheterization, Peripheral [ instrumentation]; Filtration [ instrumentation]; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infusions, Intravenous [adverse effects; instrumentation]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates (Review)
Copyright 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
17