Dressings for the central venous catheter to prevent infection in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira SilveiraEmail author
  • Paula Elaine Diniz dos Reis
  • Elaine Barros Ferreira
  • Fernanda Titareli Merizio Martins Braga
  • Cristina Maria Galvão
  • Alexander Michael Clark
Review Article



To identify the most effective dressing for covering long-term central venous catheter exit site to prevent catheter-related infections and skin irritation in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.


Systematic Review. The search was performed in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Google Scholar was used for the gray literature search.


Seven studies were included which tested different arrangements of dressings: sterilized gauze and adhesive tape with a transparent polyurethane film (n = 2), transparent polyurethane film with a different replacement interval frequency (n = 2), transparent polyurethane film with and without chlorhexidine released continuously by the dressing at the site of intravascular catheter insertion (n = 2), and dressings vs. no dressings (n = 1). The meta-analysis for catheter-related infection prevention showed no difference between type of dressing (RR 1.76, [95% CI 0.82; 3.75], I2 0%) and for the replacement frequency at different intervals (RR 1.04, [95% CI 0.67; 1.61], I2 0%). The meta-analysis for skin irritation evaluated the transparent polyurethane film replacement frequency and indicated that a longer dressing replacement interval (10 to 15 days) reduces the risk of developing this outcome (RR 0.71, 0.52; 0.96, 95% CI, I2 24%).


Regarding the type of the dressing, there is no evidence indicating the best dressing. Although there is no evidence available for the ideal replacement frequency, the risk to develop skin irritation is reduced in longer dressing replacements intervals.


Central venous catheter Bandages Occlusive dressings Systematic review 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

520_2019_5065_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (222 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 221 kb)
520_2019_5065_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (152 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 151 kb)


  1. 1.
    Schmit-Pokorny K (2009) Expanding indications for stem cell transplantation. Semin Oncol Nurs 25:105–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hildreth WB, Woodrum MA (2009) Mapping a field’s development: 20 years of ABFM conferences. Public Budg Financ 29:15–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castanho LC, Silveira RCCP, Braga FTMM, Canini SRMS, Reis PED, Voltarelli JC (2011) Motivo de retirada do cateter de Hickman em pacientes submetidos ao transplante de células-tronco hematopoéticas. Acta Paul Enferm 24:244–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castagnola E, Fontana V, Caviglia I, Caruso S, Faraci M, Fioredda F, Garrè ML, Moroni C, Conte M, Losurdo G, Scuderi F, Bandettini R, Tomà P, Viscoli C, Haupt R (2007) A prospective study on the epidemiology of febrile episodes during chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in children with cancer or after hemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 45:1296–1304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, Lipsett PA, Masur H, Mermel LA, Pearson ML, Raad II, Randolph AG, Rupp ME, Saint S (2011) Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 52:e162–e193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffmann KK, Weber DJ, Samsa GP, Rutala WA (1992) Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. JAMA 267:2072–2076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nikoletti S, Leslie G, Gandossi S, Coombs G, Wilson R (1999) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing transparent polyurethane and hydrocolloid dressings for central venous catheters. Am J Infect Control 27(6):488–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillies D, O'Riordan E, Carr D, O'Brien I, Frost J, Gunning R (2003) Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 44:623–632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silveira RCCP, Braga FTMM, Garbin LM, Galvão CM (2010) O uso do filme transparente de poliuretano no cateter venoso central de longa permanência. Rev. Latino-Am Enfermagem 18:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ullman AJ, Cooke ML, Mitchell M, Lin F, New K, Long DA, Mihala G, Rickard CM (2016) Dressing and securement for central venous access devices (CVADs): a Cochrane systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 59:177–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Margatho AS, Ciol MA, Hoffman JM, Dos Reis PED, Furuya RK, Lima DAFS, Basile-Filho A, Silveira RCCP (2018) Chlorhexidine-impregnated gel dressing compared with transparent polyurethane dressing in the prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adult patients: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Aust Crit Care S1036-7314:1–8. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM (2005) O cuidado de enfermagem e o cateter de Hickman: a busca de evidências. Acta Paul Enferm 18:276–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danks LA (2006) Central venous catheters: a review of skin cleansing and dressings. Br J Nurs 15:650–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasero L, Degl’Innocenti M, Mocali M, Alberani F, Boschi S, Giraudi A, Arnaud MT, Zucchinali R, Paris MG, Dallara R, Thaler S, Perobelli G, Parfazi S, De Lazzer T, Peron G (2000) Comparison of two different protocols for central venous catheter dressing in bone marrow transplant patients: results of a randomized multicenter study. Haematologica 85:275–279 Accessed May 1st, 2019
  15. 15.
    Benhamou E, Fessard E, Com-Nougué C, Beaussier PS, Nitenberg G, Tancrède C, Dodeman S, Hartmann O (2002) Less frequent catheter dressing changes decrease local cutaneous toxicity of high-dose chemotherapy in children, without increasing the rate of catheter-related infections: results of a randomized trial. Bone Marrow Transplant 29:653–658 Accessed May 1st, 2019
  16. 16.
    Vokurka S, Bystricka E, Visokaiova M, Scudlova J (2009) Once-versus twice-weekly changing of central venous catheter occlusive dressing in intensive chemotherapy patients: results of a randomized multicenter study. Med Sci Monit 15:CR107–CR110Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. Accessed 6 Oct 2018
  19. 19.
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A (2013) GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  21. 21.
    Biehl LM, Huth A, Panse J, Krämer C, Hentrich M, Engelhardt M, Schäfer-Eckart K, Kofla G, Kiehl M, Wendtner CM, Karthaus M, Ullmann AJ, Hellmich M, Christ H, Vehreschild MJ (2016) A randomized trial on chlorhexedine dressings for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients. Ann Oncol 27:1916–1922. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shivnan JC, McGuire D, Freedman S, Sharkazy E, Bosserman G, Larson E, Grouleff P (1991) A comparison of transparent adherent and dry sterile gauze dressings for long-term central catheters in patients undergoing bone marrow transplant. Oncol Nurs Forum 18:1349–1356Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brandt B, DePalma J, Irwin M, Shogan J, Lucke JF (1996) Comparison of central venous catheter dressing in bone marrow transplant recipients. Oncol Nurs Forum 23:829–836Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olson K, Rennie RP, Hanson J, Ryan M, Gilpin J, Falsetti M, Heffner T, Gaudet S (2004) Evaluation of a no-dressing intervention for tunneled central venous catheter exit sites. J Infus Nurs 27:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chambers ST, Sanders J, Patton WN, Ganly P, Birch M, Crump JA, Spearing RL (2005) Reduction of exit-site infections of tunnelled intravascular catheters among neutropenic patients by sustained-release chlorhexidine dressings: results from a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 61:53–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gavin NC, Webster J, Chan RJ, Rickard CM (2016) Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2:CD009213. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorente L (2016) What is new for the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections? Ann Transl Med 4:119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mimoz O, Villeminey S, Ragot S, Dahyot-Fizelier C, Laksiri L, Petitpas F, Debaene B (2007) Chlorhexidine-based antiseptic solution vs alcohol-based povidone-iodine for central venous catheter care. Arch Intern Med 167:2066–2072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Loewenthal M, Dobson P, Boyle M (2016) Chlorhexidine 2% and choice of transparent dressing increase skin reactions at central venous catheter insertion sites. Am J Infect Control 44:1712–1714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General and Specialized Nursing Department, Ribeirão Preto College of Nursing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research DevelopmentUniversity of São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Nursing Department, School of Health SciencesUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations