Conclusionsīased on the results of this meta-analysis, HS is not superior to NS in reducing CVCs occlusion. Subgroup analysis in patients with short vs long term CVC placement was consistent with the main outcome partly and in particular for maintenance of catheter patency in patients with a long-term placement i.e. Of studies reporting secondary outcomes (maneuver needed, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, haemorrhage, central venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection), heparinised saline was shown not to be superior to non-heparinised solution. Whether in terms of pooled or local analysis (RR with 95% confidence interval spans 1), NS can be equally, if not more effective, in keeping the CVCs open. Ten RCTs involving 7875 subjects (with analysis at patient, catheter, lumen and line access level) were included in this meta-analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided using a significance level of 0.05. We also performed subgroup analysis examining the effect of the duration of catheter placement on the outcome. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. References of relevant papers were reviewed manually. HS to maintain the permeability of CVCs among adult patients were included in our meta-analysis.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of NS vs. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of NS versus HS in the maintenance of the patency of CVCs in adult patients. Heparin saline (HS) is theoretically superior to normal saline (NS) for maintaining the patency of central venous catheters (CVCs), but the comparative efficacy of them remains controversial.

Systematic review vs meta analysis