Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates

Foster J, Richards R, Showell M

Background - Methods - Results - Characteristics of Included Studies - References - Data Tables & Graphs


Cover sheet

Title

Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates

Reviewers

Foster J, Richards R, Showell M

Dates

Date edited: 21/02/2006
Date of last substantive update: 06/02/2006
Date of last minor update: / /
Date next stage expected 06/02/2008
Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2005
Review first published: Issue 2, 2006

Contact reviewer

Ms Jann P Foster
QE11 Building (DO2) Building
University of Sydney
Sydney
NSW AUSTRALIA
2006
Telephone 1: 61+2+93518749
Telephone 2: 0414502724
Facsimile: 61+2+93518749
E-mail: jfoster@perinatal.usyd.edu.au

Contribution of reviewers

Jann Foster (JF), Marian Showell (MS) and Robyn Richards (RR) 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.

Internal sources of support

NSW Pregnancy and Newborn Services Network, Sydney, AUSTRALIA

External sources of support

None

What's new

Dates

Date review re-formatted: / /
Date new studies sought but none found: / /
Date new studies found but not yet included/excluded: / /
Date new studies found and included/excluded: / /
Date reviewers' conclusions section amended: / /
Date comment/criticism added: / /
Date response to comment/criticisms added: / /

Text of review

Synopsis

Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates

Preterm or sick newborn infants are often fed with nutrients and fluids that are delivered directly into a vein. This intravenous delivery can be associated with infection, toxins released by bacteria, and tiny particles that may be in the fluids, such as rubber and plastic, going into the blood. In adults, placing a filter in the intravenous line has been reported to be effective in reducing such risks and filters are increasingly being recommended for use in newborn infants. The review authors searched the medical literature and identified three eligible studies, which recruited a total of 262 newborns. Septicaemia and illness, deaths or problems with the intravenous catheters were no different with or without a filter. These were small studies that provided limited information. This review is unable to recommend their use due to insufficient evidence.

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 assess whether in-line filters on intravenous lines prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.

Search strategy

Searches were made of the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (from 1980 to September 2005), CINAHL (from 1982 to September 2005) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005 ). There was no language restriction. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching.

Selection criteria

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in neonates were included in the review.

Data collection & 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.

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 three eligible studies, which recruited a total of 262 neonates. For most of the outcomes for this review, only one study of 88 neonates contributed eligible data. This review found no significant effect of in-line filters in any of the reported outcomes of overall mortality, proven and unproven septicaemia, phlebitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, duration of cannula patency, number of catheters inserted and financial costs.

Reviewers' conclusions

There are insufficient data to determine whether or not the use of intravenous in-line filters prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.
The wide confidence intervals on outcomes indicate the imprecise estimates of treatment effect due to the small numbers of patients and events.

Background

Venous access is an essential part of caring for the sick neonate; however, problems associated with intravenous (IV) infusion therapy include contamination of fluids with bacteria, endotoxins and particulates (Bethune 2001).

Infusion therapy carries a risk for catheter-associated septicaemia (Geiss 1992). Infection can originate from the catheter tubing, the ports, at the cannula site or from contaminated infusion fluid. Factors cited as increasing the risk for catheter related infection include type of IV fluid, for example total parenteral nutrition solutions or solutions with high concentrations of dextrose (Pearson 1996). While not all infections lead to septicaemia, immuno-compromised patients such as neonates, are at greater risk, and infection becomes a major problem (Ng 1989). In adult patients, use of the bacterial retention filter lead to fewer clinically significant bacteremias (Quercia 1986).

Contamination of IV administration sets with gram-negative bacteria has been reported to lead to rapid proliferation of endotoxins (Bethune 2001). In adults, endotoxins have been implicated in several serious disease processes, including respiratory distress syndrome (Parsons 1989), septic shock (Glauser 1991), multiple organ failure, endotoxic shock and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Glauser 1991; Casale 1990; Suffredini 1989a). Cardiovascular changes such as increased heart rate, decreased vascular resistance and depressed left ventricular function (Suffredini 1989b) and increased intestinal permeability (O'Dwyer 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). Positively-charged in-line filters are reported to be effective in the retention of endotoxins (Barnett 1996).

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). Several adult studies have shown that IV in-line filtration significantly reduces the incidence (Chee 2002; Roberts 1994) and delays the onset of phlebitis, (Roberts 1994; Allcutt 1983) resulting in extended line survival (Roberts 1994), fewer recannulations (Chee 2002) and lower costs.

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, 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. The use of in-line filters in adults has been shown to be effective in the removal of particulates, and particularly effective in the removal of particles caused from drug precipitate such as antibiotics (Ball 2003; Chee 2002; Roberts 1994).

In-line IV filters were conceived and first utilized in the 1960s for the retention of particulate contamination. Since then, filter systems have been further refined. In-line IV filters are currently claimed to be an effective strategy for the removal of bacteria, endotoxins and particulates associated with intravenous therapy in adults (Ball 2003; Kunac 1999) and have also been cited as leading to favourable patient outcomes such as shortened duration of hospital stays (Koekenberg 1983). They are also increasingly being recommended for use in neonates (Bethune 2001; Kunac 1999).

There are two main IV filter pore sizes. The 0.22 micron filter is used for aqueous solutions, and the 1.2 micron filter is recommended for larger molecule solutions such as lipids. The 0.22 micron filter has also been reported to remove air, microorganisms and particulate matter. In addition, endotoxin retention is reportedly achieved by using a positively charged filter membrane; toxic macro-molecules are released by gram-negative bacteria and are claimed to be effective for up to ninety six hours ( Bethune 2001).

The benefits of using IV in-line filters have been challenged by several authors. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the filtration of infusates during manufacture as a more cost-effective and practical way to remove particulates than IV in-line filters (Pearson 1996; Newell 1998). Friedland (Friedland 1985) reported that some solutions caused a reduction in flow rate or clogging of the filter. He also reported that 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.

The aim of this study is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of in-line filters on intravenous lines in neonates.

Objectives

To assess whether in-line filters on intravenous lines prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.

Pre-specified sub-group analysis will be carried out according to:
1. Type of filter (approximate diameter 0.2 micron; 1.2 micron)
2. Gestation : term and preterm (defined as < 37 weeks) or extreme preterm (defined as < 30 weeks gestation)
3. Type of intravenous line (central; peripheral)
4. Type of intravenous fluid (crystalloid solutions, total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, lipids)

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (where either the individual patient or a cluster of patients has been randomized) were included in the trial.

Types of participants

Neonates with intravenous infusions who were randomised in the neonatal period (< 29 days post delivery)

Types of interventions

In-line intravenous filter versus placebo or nothing

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes:
1. Mortality from any cause
2. Proven septicaemic infection; positive bacterial or fungal blood culture

Secondary outcomes:
1. Localised phlebitis; redness, inflammation and tenderness at location of cannula
2. Duration of cannula patency (days)
3. Number of catheters inserted
4. Suspected septicaemic infection; clinical symptoms consistent with septicaemia, but not proven
5. Thrombus, local (cannula insertion site) ; diagnosed by ultrasound
6. Thrombus, systemic; diagnosed by ultrasound
7. Proven necrotizing enterocolitis; Bell's stage two or greater
8. Suspected necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC); clinical symptoms consistent with NEC, but not proven
9. Periventricular leukomalacia (PVL); cystic changes in the periventricular areas.
10. Neurodevelopment, assessed up to two years corrected age, as measured by a validated assessment tool
11. Financial costs
12. Length of stay in hospital (days)
13. Adverse effects reported in the trials (if any)

Search strategy for identification of studies

The standard search method of the Cochrane Neonatal Group as described in the Cochrane Library was used.
Searches were made of the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (from 1980 to September 2005), CINAHL (from 1982 to September 2005) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005). There was no language restriction. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching. 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'.

Methods of the review

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. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion between the review authors. Additional information was requested from one the investigators.

Methodological quality of the studies was judged according to: (1) blinding of randomization, (2) blinding of intervention, (3) completeness of follow-up and (4) blinding of outcome measurement. In addition, allocation concealment was ranked using the Cochrane approach: Grade A: Adequate concealment; Grade B: Uncertain; Grade C: Clearly inadequate concealment; Grade D: Not used.

Methods used to synthesise data:
Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Dichotomous data is expressed as relative risk (RR and 95% confidence intervals (CI)), risk difference (RD with 95% CI) and number needed to treat (NNT) for dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables was analysed using weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals. The heterogeneity of studies was estimated using an I-squared statistic.

Description of studies

Three published studies met the inclusion criteria. One recently completed trial (van den Hoogen 2005) was identified and is waiting assessment (see the Characteristics of Ongoing Studies table). No trials were excluded. A total of 262 neonates were included in these studies (range 63 - 111). The details of each of these three studies are given in the table of Characteristics of Included Studies.

van Lingen (van Lingen 2004) studied 88 neonates to evaluate the effectiveness of in-line filters with no filters to prevent complications such as bacteraemia, phlebitis, extravasation, thrombosis, septicaemia and necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates who required an intravenous catheter. van Lingen (van Lingen 2004) used a 0.22 micron Pall Posidyne ELD96TM filter that the manufacturer recommends using for the elimination of particles, microbes, air and endotoxins. van Lingen (van Lingen 2004) also evaluated the economic impact of the use of IV in-line 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, or the length of the study period. Van Lingen
van Lingen (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 (Thomas 1989) assessed the effect of in-line filters on duration of cannula patency in 63 neonates requiring IV fluids. Thomas (Thomas 1989) used a 0.2 micron CathivexTM filter that is only recommended for the removal of particulate and air. Similar to the van Lingen (van Lingen 2004) study, 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 (Bennion 1991) assessed the effect of IV in-line filters on serum gentamycin 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 (Bennion 1991) used a 0.22 micron Pall Posidyne ELD96TM that was used by van Lingen 2004. 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 gentamycin level results for each baby and any necrosed areas that developed. Serum gentamycin levels were checked on the third dose of the antibiotic. No information was provided on cannula site preparation.

All studies were single centre studies. All three studies used 0.2 micron filters. The Bennion (Bennion 1991) and Thomas (Thomas 1989) studies used peripheral catheters, and the van Lingen 2004 study used central venous (percutaneous and umbilical) catheters to deliver the IV fluids. While all the studies compared the use of in-line filters with no in-line filter, the outcomes that were measured varied.

There were no other identified studies that assessed whether intravenous in-line filters prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.

Methodological quality of included studies

Details of the methodological quality of each trial are given in the Table of Characteristics of Included Studies.
Only the study of van Lingen 2004 was randomized (computer-generated randomization with sealed numbered envelopes that were opened on admission of each neonate). Two studies (Bennion 1991 and Thomas 1989) were quasi-randomised (alternate allocation). A placebo was not used in any of the three studies and, therefore, there was no blinding of the intervention. Outcome measurements were not blinded in any of the studies. The three studies examined short-term outcomes and accounted for all neonates in the intervention and control groups.

Results

In-line intravenous filter vs. placebo
No studies were identified for this comparison.

In-line intravenous filter vs. no filter
Three studies were identified for this comparison (van Lingen 2004; Bennion 1991; Thomas 1989).

Primary outcomes:
1) Mortality from any cause (Table 01.01):
Mortality was only reported in the van Lingen 2004 study of 88 infants. There were four deaths in the control group and none in the treatment group; no significant impact on mortality was demonstrated.
RR 0.11 [(95% CI 0.01, 2.00), RD -0.09 (95% CI -0.18, 0.00)].

2) Proven septicaemic infection (positive bacterial or fungal blood culture) (Table 01.02):
Proven septicaemic infection was only reported in the van Lingen 2004 study of 88 infants and there was no statistical difference found.
[RR 0.40 (95% CI 0.14, 1.18), RD -0.14 (95% CI -0.29, 0.01)].

Secondary outcomes:
1) Localised phlebitis (redness, inflammation and tenderness at location of cannula) (Table 01.03):
Localised phlebitis was reported in the van Lingen 2004 study of 88 infants and Bennion 1991 reported the incidence of localised necrosis (undefined) in 111 infants. Overall, no difference between the treatment and control groups was found.
Summary [RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.40, 3.77), RD 0.01 (95% CI -0.05, 0.08)] .

Thomas 1989 reported the incidence of 'tissuing' (undefined by authors but regarded as infiltration or leaking of fluids into the area surrounding the vein) related to number of cannulations rather than number of neonates and, therefore, could not be included in the above analysis. There were 59 incidences of phlebitis from 81 cannulations in the treatment group (n = 30), compared to 67 incidences of phlebitis from 86 cannulations in the control group (n = 33). There was no difference between the treatment and control groups.

2) Duration of cannula patency:
Two studies reported on duration of cannula patency. In the van Lingen 2004 study, the total duration for the catheters remaining in place for all neonates in the study group (n=44) was a total of 525 patient days (mean 8.1 days per neonate). In the control group, the total duration for the catheters remaining in place for all neonates (n=44) was a total of 493 patient days (mean 8.8 days per neonate). A difference between the treatment and control groups was not found.

In the Thomas 1989 study, the median duration of catheter patency in the treatment group was 59 hours compared to 49 hours in the control group. The authors reported a statistical difference between the two groups (log rank test Chi squared = 4.024, p < 0.05) with a median increase in cannula patency of twenty percent in the treatment group compared to the control group.

3) Number of catheters inserted:
Two studies reported on the number of catheters inserted (Thomas 1989; van Lingen 2004). There was no difference between the treatment and control groups. In the van Lingen 2004 study there was a total of 65 IV catheter insertions. These were reported as 23 percutaneous and 42 umbilical central venous catheter insertions (43 first, 17 second and 5 third) for the neonates in the study group (n = 44). There were 56 (40 percutaneous and 16 umbilical) catheter insertions (42 first, 12 second and 2 third) for the neonates in the control group (n = 44). For the Thomas 1989 study there was a total of 81 catheter (peripheral) insertions in the study group (n = 30) compared to 86 catheter (peripheral) insertions in the control group (n = 33). Standard deviations were not provided and, therefore, a weighted mean difference could not be performed.

4) Suspected septicaemic infection (clinical symptoms consistent with septicaemia, but not proven) (Table 01.04):
The van Lingen 2004 study of 88 infants was the only study to report suspected septicaemic infection and found no difference.
[RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.18, 1.81), RD -0.07 (95% CI -0.21, 0.07)].

5) Local thrombosis (cannula insertion site, diagnosed by ultrasound) (Table 01.05):
Local thrombosis was only reported in the van Lingen 2004 study and no significant difference was found.
[RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.01, 4.05), RD -0.05 (95% CI -0.12, 0.03)].

6) Systemic thrombus (diagnosed by ultrasound):
No data available.

7) Proven necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell's stage two or greater) (Table 01.06):
Proven necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) was only reported in the van Lingen 2004 study and there were no significant differences.
[RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.01, 4.05), RD -0.05 (95% CI -0.12, 0.03)].

8) Suspected necrotizing enterocolitis (clinical symptoms consistent with NEC, but not proven):
No data were available.

9) Periventricular leukomalacia (cystic changes in the periventricular areas):
No data available

10) Neurodevelopment (assessed up to 2 years corrected age, as measured by a validated assessment tool):
No data were available.

11) Financial costs:
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. 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 babies 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) Length of stay in hospital (days):
No data were available.

13) Adverse affects reported in the trials:
Bennion 1991 was the only study that reported any adverse effects. Precipitate was found to clog the filter and the flow of intravenous fluids.

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.

Discussion

Three trials of variable quality were included in the review (Bennion 1991, Thomas 1989; van Lingen 2004). They were all small studies and no outcomes between the treatment and control groups were statistically different. No differences were found in the incidence of overall mortality, sepsis or other secondary outcomes. Evaluation of a composite outcome was not prespecified in this review. van Lingen 2004 reported a composite outcome for thrombi, 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, 0.77), RD -0.30 (95% CI -0.48, -0.11)].
The wide confidence intervals on outcomes indicate the imprecise estimates of treatment effect due to the small numbers of patients and events.
There are insufficient data to support the use of intravenous in-line filters to prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates. However, the van Lingen 2004 study showed a trend toward decreased mortality in the treatment group. An increase in morbidity, mortality or adverse events was also not demonstrated with less frequent changing of the intravenous sets (every four days) when an IV in-line filter was used, compared to daily changing of the IV administration sets in the control group. Cost savings were found by van Lingen 2004 and Bennion 1991. We found no data available from randomised controlled trials that compared length of hospital stay, periventricular leucomalacia, neurodevelopment and incidence of systemic thrombus.

Reviewers' conclusions

Implications for practice

There is insufficient data to determine whether or not the use of intravenous in-line filters prevent morbidity or mortality in neonates. Therefore, no recommendations can be confidently made due to the small number of infants studied.

Implications for research

This review has highlighted the lack of studies that have compared the use of in-line IV filters for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in neonates. Further trials are needed to be able to assess the effectiveness of 0.22 micron positively charged 96 hour IV in-line filters and 1.2 micron IV in-line filters used for lipid administration for use in term and preterm neonates. In particular, outcomes that require additional study are mortality, septicaemia, periventricular leukomalacia, necrotizing enterocolitis, systemic and local thrombus, local phlebitis and financial costs.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jane Bell, Prof. David Henderson-Smart and the Australasian Coordinating Network of the Neonatal Review Group for their editorial assistance.

Potential conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest

Characteristics of included studies

StudyMethodsParticipantsInterventionsOutcomesNotesAllocation concealment
Bennion 1991Blinding of randomisation - no (each baby that required intravenous infusion was entered into the study, with alternate babies having an in-line filter).
Blinding of treatment - no
Blinding of outcome - no
Complete followup - yes

111 neonates requiring IV fluids via peripheral venous line.
Gestation - 28-37 wks.
Birthweight - 1170-3240 gms.
No exclusions.
Exp. group - 0.22 micron intravenous in-line filter (N=55).
Control group - No filter or placebo. Administration set changed daily in control group and every 96 hours in treatment group.
(N=56).
1. Effect of intravenous in-line filters on gentamycin level results.
2. Incidence of necrosed area at infiltration site.
3. Cost of administration sets when an in-line filter is used, compared to the cost when a filter is not used.
4. Duration of IV in progress
5. Duration of IV infusion in progress

C
Thomas 1989Blinding of randomisation - no (each baby that required intravenous infusion was entered into the study, with alternate babies having an in-line filter).
Blinding of treatment - no
Blinding of outcome - no
Complete followup - yes

63 neonates requiring IV fluids via peripheral venous line.
Mean gestation - 34.13- 34.91wks.
Mean birthweight - 2230-2350 gms.
No exclusions.
Exp. group - 0.2 micron intravenous filter (N=30)
Control group - No filter but extension set substituted for filter. (N=33).
Administration sets changed every 24 hours in treatment and control groups.
1. Duration of cannula patency
2. Extravasation
3. Leaking at infusion site
4. Number of catheter insertions

C
van Lingen 2004blinding of randomisation - yes (computer generated randomization and sealed numbered envelopes were opened on admission of the neonate and neonates allocated to either study or control group).
blinding of treatment - no
Blinding of outcome - no
complete followup - yes
88 neonates requiring IV fluids via an umbilical or percutaneous central venous line. Premature infants with RDS and term infants with asphyxia or pneumonia/ septicaemia were eligible.
Gestation - 26.3-42.3 wks.
Birthweight 585 - 4100 gms.
Ineligible if congenital malformation present and infants <26 weeks gestation.
Exp. group - 0.22 micron intravenous filter (N=44)
Control group - No filter or placebo . (N=44)
Full blood count on admission
Catheter tips cultured after removal.
Administration set changed daily in the control group. Administration set changed every 96 hours in treatment group
1. Phlebitis
2. Extravasation
3. Thrombosis
4. Proven Sepsis: 'characteristic clinical symptoms' +ve blood culture, + abnormal tests, (leucocytosis, leucopenia, granulocytopenia CRP> 10mg/l)
5. Unproven sepsis: 'characteristic clinical symptoms' + negative blood culture +abnormal tests
6. NEC
7. Duration of cannula patency
7. Number of catheter insertions.
8. Duration of catheter insertion
Secondary septicaemia

A

Characteristics of ongoing studies

StudyTrial name or titleParticipantsInterventionsOutcomesStarting dateContact informationNotes
van den Hoogen 2006In-line filters in central venous catheters in a neonatal intensive care unit442 neonates requiring IV fluids via a central venous catheter (CVC)
sepsis, nursing time and costs, catheter days and number of catheters used were assessed
Dr. Tannette G. Krediet
Dept. of Neonatology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital
University Medical Centre
PO Box 85090
3508 AB Urecht, The Netherlands.
t.krediet@wkz.azu.nl

References to studies

References to included studies

Bennion 1991 {published data only}

Bennion D, Martin K. In-line filtration. Paediatric Nursing 1991;June:20-21.

Thomas 1989 {published data only}

Thomas PH. In-line terminal filtration of intravenous fluids and its effect on cannula patency in neonates. Proceedings- Guild of Hospital Pharmacy 2004;26:3-10.

van Lingen 2004 {published data only}

van Lingen RA, Baerts W, Marquering AC, Ruijs GJ. The use of in-line intravenous filters in sick newborn infants. Acta Paediatrica 2004;93:658-62.

References to studies awaiting assessment

van den Hoogen 2005 {unpublished data only}

* van den Hoogen A, Uiterwaal CSPM, Bolenius JFGA, Geraards LJ, Fleer A, Krediet TG. In-line filters in central venous catheters in a neonatal intensive care unit. Correspondence.

References to ongoing studies

van den Hoogen 2006 {unpublished data only}

* indicates the primary reference for the study

Other 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;70:111-13.

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;39:241-5.

Ball 2003

Ball PA. Intravenous in-line filters: filtering the evidence. Current Opinion in Cinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 2003;6:319-25.

Ballance 1990

Ballance WA, Dahms BB, Shenker N, Kliegman RM. Pathology of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis: a ten year experience. Journal of Pediatrics 1990;117:S6-S13.

Barnett 1996

Barnett MI, Cosslett AG. Endotoxin retention capabilities of positively charged nylon and positively charged polysulphone membrane intravenous filters. Pharmaceutical Sciences 1996;2:319-20.

Bell 1978

Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, Keating JP, Marshall R, Barton L, Brotherton T. Neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis. Therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Annals of Surgery 1978;187:1-7.

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 by a British pharmaceutical nutrition group working party. Nutrition 2001;17:403-8.

Casale 1990

Casale T, Ballas Z, Kaliner M, Keahey T. The effect of intravenous endotoxin on various host-effector molecules. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1990;85:45-51.

Chee 2002

Chee S, Tan W. Reducing infusion phlebitis in Singapore hospitals using extended life end-line filters. Journal of Infusion Nursing 2002;25:95-104.

Friedland 1985

Friedland G. Infusion-related phlebitis--is the in-line filter the solution? New England Journal of Medicine 1985;312:113-5.

Garvan 1964

Garvan JM, Gunner BW. The harmful effects of particles in intravenous fluids. Medical Journal of Australia 1964;17:1-6.

Geiss 1992

Geiss H, Batzer A, Sonntag H. Investigations on the retention of microorganisms by inline-filters for intravenous infusions in ICU patients. Hygiene Medizin 1992;17:421-26.

Gilles 1977

Gilles FH, Averill DR Jr, Kerr CS. Neonatal endotoxin encephalopathy. Annals of Neurology 1977;2:49-56.

Glauser 1991

Glauser MP, Zanetti G, Baumgartner JD, Cohen J. Septic shock: pathogenesis. Lancet 1991;338:732-6.

Hill 1992

Hill A, Volpe JJ. Textbook of Neonatology. 2nd edition. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1992.

Holmes 1980

Holmes CJ, Kundsin RB, Ausman RK, Walter CW. Potential hazards associated with microbial contamination of in-line filters during intravenous therapy. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1980;12:725-31.

Kirkpatrick 1988

Kirkpatrick C. Particulate matter in intravenous fluids: The importance for medicine. Krankenhauspharmazie 1988;9:487-90.

Koekenberg 1983

Koekenberg H. A case for I.V. filtration. Infusion 1983;7:76-82.

Kunac 1999

Kunac D, Ball P, Broadbent R. In-line intravenous filtration in neonates-help not hindrance. Australian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 1999;29:321-27.

Maki 1991

Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;114:845-54.

Marshall 1987

Marshall L, Lloyd G. Intravenous fluid infiltration. Care of the Critically Ill 1987;3:10-17.

Newell 1998

Newell F, Ranson K, Robertson J. Use of in-line filters in pediatric intravenous therapy. Journal of Intravenous Nursing 1998;21:166-70.

Ng 1989

Ng P, Herrington RA, Beane CA, Ghoneim A, Dear PR. An outbreak of acinetobacter septicaemia in a neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Hospital Infection 1989;14:363-8.

O'Dwyer 1988

O'Dwyer ST, Michie HR, Zeigler TR, Revhaug A, Smith RJ, Wilmore DW. A single dose of endotoxin increases intestinal permeability in healthy humans. Archives of Surgery 1988;123:1459-64.

Parsons 1989

Parsons PE, Worthen GS, Moore EE, Tate RM, Henson PM. The association of circulating endotoxin with the development of adult respiratory distress syndrome. American Review of Respiratory Diseases 1989;140:294-301.

Pearson 1996

Pearson ML. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections: Part 1. Intravascular device-related infections: an overview. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. American Journal of Infection Control 1996;24:262-77.

Quercia 1986

Quercia RA, Hills SW, Klimek JJ, McLaughlin JC, Nightingale CH, Drezner AD, Sigman R. Bacteriologic contamination of intravenous infusion delivery systems in an intensive care unit. American Journal of Medicine 1986;80:364-8.

Roberts 1994

Roberts GW, Holmes MD, Staugas RE, Day RA, Finlay CF, Pitcher A. Peripheral intravenous line survival and phlebitis prevention in patients receiving intravenous antibiotics: heparin/hydrocortisone versus in-line filters. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 1994;28:11-6.

Shaw 1985

Shaw NJ, Lyall EG. Hazards of glass ampoules. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed) 1985;291:1390.

Suffredini 1989a

Suffredini AF, Harpel PC, Parrillo JE. Promotion and subsequent inhibition of plasminogen activation after administration of intravenous endotoxin to normal subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 1989;320:1165-72.

Suffredini 1989b

Suffredini AF, Fromm RE, Parker MM, Brenner M, Kovacs JA, Wesley RA, Parrillo JE.. The cardiovascular response of normal humans to the administration of endotoxin. New England Journal of Medicine 1989;321:280-7.

Tebbs 1996

Tebbs SE, Ghose A, Elliott TS. Microbial contamination of intravenous and arterial catheters. Intensive Care Medicine 1996;22:272-3.

Volpe 2001

Volpe J. Neurobiology of periventricular leukomalacia in the premature infant. Pediatric Research 2001;50:553-62.

Comparisons and data

01 Favours Filter vs FavoursControl
01.01 Mortality
01.02 Proven Septicaemia
01.03 Phlebitis
01.04 Suspected Septicaemia
01.05 Localised Thrombi
01.06 Necrotizing Enterocolitis

Comparison or outcomeStudiesParticipantsStatistical methodEffect size
01 Favours Filter vs FavoursControl
01 Mortality188RR (fixed), 95% CI0.11 [0.01, 2.00]
02 Proven Septicaemia188RR (fixed), 95% CI0.40 [0.14, 1.18]
03 Phlebitis2199RR (fixed), 95% CI1.22 [0.40, 3.77]
04 Suspected Septicaemia188RR (fixed), 95% CI0.57 [0.18, 1.81]
05 Localised Thrombi188RR (fixed), 95% CI0.20 [0.01, 4.05]
06 Necrotizing Enterocolitis188RR (fixed), 95% CI0.20 [0.01, 4.05]

Notes

Published notes

Contact details for co-reviewers

Robyn Richards
Neonatal Clinical Nurse Consultant
Newborn Care
Liverpool Hospital
Liverpool
NSW AUSTRALIA
1871
Telephone 1: 61 2 98285597
Facsimile: 61 2 982855582
E-mail: robyn.richards3@swsahs.nsw.gov.au

Marian Showell
New South Wales Pregnancy and newborn Services Network, University of Sydney
QEII Building D02
Sydney
NSW AUSTRALIA
2006
E-mail: marian.showell@bigpond.com.au


The review is published as a Cochrane review in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006 (see http://www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.