首页> 外文期刊>Thrombosis Journal >Retrospective cohort analysis comparing the incidence of deep vein thromboses between peripherally-inserted and long-term skin tunneled venous catheters in hemato-oncology patients
【24h】

Retrospective cohort analysis comparing the incidence of deep vein thromboses between peripherally-inserted and long-term skin tunneled venous catheters in hemato-oncology patients

机译:回顾性队列分析比较血液肿瘤患者外周置入和长期皮肤穿刺静脉导管之间深静脉血栓形成的发生率

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background The introduction of central venous catheters has advanced medical care, particularly in hemato-oncology. However these can be associated with an increased thrombotic risk. Previous studies have compared the rate of thrombotic events between peripherally- inserted (PICCs) and long term skin tunneled catheters (LTSTCs) noting fewer complications associated with the latter, though this has rarely translated into clinical practice. The objectives of our study was to compare the cumulative incidence of thrombotic events between peripherally-inserted and long term skin tunneled venous catheters. Patients/methods We performed a retrospective, single center cohort analysis of patients with hematological malignancies who had either a PICC or LTSTC line inserted between January 2010 through January 2013. Cumulative incidences of thrombotic events were compared between the two groups, and post-thrombotic complications were also examined. Results 346 patients had a PICC inserted with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 5.8%, while 237 patients had a LTSTC inserted with a cumulative incidence of 1.7% (p?=?0.003). Post-thrombotic complication rates, particularly infection, were higher in the PICC group compared to the LTSTC group (p?=?0.597). Conclusions Our study showed that the incidence of thrombotic events in hemato-oncology patients was significantly lower in those who had a LTSTC compared to PICC line. As the use of central venous lines increases in hemato-oncology patient care, a randomized trial comparing PICCs and LTSTCs is necessary to address which venous access is most appropriate in this cohort of patients, with minimal risk of morbidity and mortality.
机译:背景技术中央静脉导管的引入具有先进的医疗保健,尤其是在血液肿瘤学方面。但是,这些可能会增加血栓形成风险。先前的研究已经比较了外周插入(PICC)与长期皮肤隧道导管(LTSTC)之间的血栓形成事件发生率,并指出与后者相关的并发症较少,尽管这很少转化为临床实践。我们研究的目的是比较外周插入和长期皮肤隧道静脉导管之间血栓形成事件的累积发生率。患者/方法我们对2010年1月至2013年1月间插入PICC或LTSTC线的血液系统恶性肿瘤患者进行了回顾性单中心队列分析。比较了两组之间的血栓事件累积发生率以及血栓后并发症还进行了检查。结果346例插入PICC的患者的症状性血栓形成累积发生率为5.8%,而237例插入LTSTC的患者的累积症状发生率为1.7%(p?=?0.003)。与LTSTC组相比,PICC组的血栓后并发症发生率,特别是感染率更高(p≥0.597)。结论我们的研究表明,与PICC系相比,接受LTSTC治疗的血液肿瘤患者血栓形成事件的发生率显着降低。随着血液肿瘤患者对中心静脉管线的使用增加,有必要进行比较PICC和LTSTC的随机试验,以解决在这一组患者中哪种静脉通路最合适,发病率和死亡率风险最小的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号