ブックタイトルカテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

概要

カテーテル関連尿路感染の予防のためのCDCガイドライン 2009｜株式会社メディコン

For all comparisons, we considered CAUTI outcomes as well as other outcomes critical toweighing the risks and benefits of different catheter management techniques. The evidence forthis question consists of 6 systematic reviews, 37,105,106,182-184 56 RCTs, 60,61,65-69,143,158,185-231 34observational studies, 83,85,88,90,96,102,133,167,178,232-258 and 1 economic analysis. 180 The findings of theevidence review and the grades for all important outcomes are shown in Evidence Review Table2C.Q2C.1. Antimicrobial prophylaxisLow-quality evidence suggested no benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoingshort-term catheterization. 37,60,61,83,85,133,158,178,182,185,186,189-191,232-234 This was based on heterogeneousresults for SUTI and bacteriuria/unspecified UTI and no adverse events related to antimicrobials.Lack of consistency in specific factors, such as patient population, antimicrobial agents, timing ofadministration, and duration of follow-up, did not allow for a summary of evidence of the effect ofantimicrobial prophylaxis on CAUTI in patients undergoing short term catheterization. Only twostudies evaluated adverse events related to antimicrobials. Our search did not reveal data onantimicrobial resistance or Clostridium difficile infection.Low-quality evidence suggested no benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoinglong-term catheterization (indwelling and clean intermittent catheterization). 106,183,192,194,235,238 Thiswas based on a decreased risk of bacteriuria, heterogeneous results for SUTI, and no differencesreported for catheter encrustation or adverse events, although data were sparse. One systematicreview suggested an increase in antimicrobial resistance with antimicrobial use.Q2C.2. Urinary antisepticsLow-quality evidence suggested a benefit of methenamine for short-term catheterizedpatients. 196,197 This was based on a reduced risk of SUTI and bacteriuria and no differences inadverse events. Evidence was limited to two studies of patients following gynecological surgery inNorway and Sweden.Very low-quality evidence suggested a benefit of methanamine for long-term catheterizedpatients. 106,236-239 This was based on a reduced risk of encrustation but no differences in risk ofSUTI or bacteriuria. Data on encrustation was limited to one study. Studies involved primarilyelderly and spinal cord injury patients with chronic indwelling cathetersQ2C.3. Bladder irrigationLow-quality evidence suggested no benefit of bladder irrigation in patients with indwelling orintermittent catheters. 66,69,199-206,240-242This was based on no differences in SUTI andheterogeneous findings for bacteriuria.Q2C.4. Antiseptic instillation in the drainage bagLow-quality evidence suggested no benefit of antiseptic instillation in urinary drainage bags. 90,207-211,243-245This was based on no differences in SUTI and heterogeneous results for bacteriuria.< 原文 > VIII. Evidence Review91