Heparin versus 0.9% saline solution to maintain patency of totally implanted venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The use of heparin and 0.9% saline solution is always controversial for central venous catheters. However, there is no systematic review or guideline about whether saline solution can replace heparin solution in adult cancer patients with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). The purpose of this review is to evaluate whether saline solution can replace heparin saline to lock TIVAPs. METHODS: The following databases were searched: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Ovid (January 1, 1982, and February 21, 2020). All statistical analyses of the meta-analysis were completed using the Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 201 studies were identified from these databases after initial review, and four studies met inclusion criteria, including 2652 cases. There was little heterogeneity among the included studies (I2 < 30%), and all analyses were conducted by the fixed-effects model. The total complications, catheter occlusions, catheter-related bloodstream infections and other complication rates in the heparin solution group were higher than in the saline solution group. In the subgroup analysis of heparin concentration, total complication rates in the saline solution group were higher than with 50 U of heparin and lower than with 100 U of heparin. However, the differences in these complications were small, and no significant difference was observed (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing clinical studies, we recommend that saline solution can replace 50 or 100 U/ml of heparin as a safe and effective flush solution for TIVAPs.

Establishment of a Simple and Quick Method for Detecting Extended-Spectrum ß-Lactamase (ESBL) Genes in Bacteria.

Extended-spectrum ß-lactamase (ESBL) genes that render bacteria resistant to antibiotics are commonly detected using phenotype testing, which is time consuming and not sufficiently accurate. To establish a better method, we used phenotype testing to identify ESBL-positive bacterial strains and conducted PCR to screen for TEM (named after the patient Temoneira who provided the first sample), sulfhydryl reagent variable (SHV), cefotaxime (CTX)-M-1, and CTX-M-9, the 4 most common ESBL types and subtypes. We then performed multiplex PCR with 1 primer containing a biotin and hybridized the PCR products with gene-specific probes that were coupled with microbeads and coated with a specific fluorescence. The hybrids were linked to streptavidin-R-phycoerythrins (SA-PEs) and run through a flow cytometer, which sorted the fluorescently dyed microbeads and quantified the PEs. The results from single PCR, multiplex PCR, and cytometry were consistent with each other. We used this method to test 169 clinical specimens that had been determined for phenotypes and found 154 positive for genotypes, including 30 of the 45 samples that were negative for phenotypes. The CTX-M genotype tests alone, counting both positive and negative cases, showed 99.41% (168/169) consistency with the ESBL phenotype test. Thus, we have established a multiplex-PCR system as a simple and quick method that is high throughput and accurate for detecting 4 common ESBL types and subtypes.