...
首页> 外文期刊>Thrombosis Research: An International Journal on Vascular Obstruction, Hemorrhage and Hemostasis >Is guidewire exchange a better approach for subclavian vein re-catheterization for chronic hemodialysis patients?
【24h】

Is guidewire exchange a better approach for subclavian vein re-catheterization for chronic hemodialysis patients?

机译:导丝交换是慢性血液透析患者锁骨下静脉再次置管的更好方法吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes and survival rates of subclavian vein re-catheterization through guide wire exchange (GWE) or de novo insertion (DN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in a retrospective manner. Medical records of 36 patients who received percutaneous subclavian vein re-catheterization for hemodialysis in our institution during the period from April 1, 2001 to September 30, 2004 were reviewed. All patients had at least 2 catheter insertions records in our institute. Incidences of adverse events (infection, thrombosis) were compared between GWE and DN groups using x2 test. Predictors for adverse event occurrences were analyzed using logistic regression models. Cox proportional hazard model was used to investigate the predictors for adverse event-free catheter days. Kaplan-Meire survival curves were computed and compared using log rank test. RESULTS: Information were generated from 98 catheters (41 from DN, 57 from GWE groups). The average catheter usage was 2.8+/-0.9 devices per patient and the mean catheter-indwelling-day was 125.4+/-129.5 days in this cohort. We found GWE group had significantly lower thrombosis rate (49.1% vs. 85.4% for DN group, P<0.000) in general. Surgical approach was a significant risk factors for catheter thrombosis (GWE vs. DN, odds ratio=0.261, P=0.05). The actuarial survival rates for GWE were > or =30 days, 85.4%; > or =60 days, 75.5%; > or =90 days, 64.5%; > or =180 days, 44.3%. The actuarial survival rates for DN were > or =30 days, 70.7%; > or 60 days, 58.5%; > or catheters had significantly higher catheter survival rates (P=0.0009). Mahukar catheter (hazard ratio 0.514, P=0.03), non-shock (hazard ratio 3.358, P=0.04), and older age (hazard ratio 0.958, P=0.026) were predictors of adverse event-free remaining catheter days. CONCLUSION: We suggest that GWE might be a favorable option over DN insertion when revised subclavian vein catheterization is inevitable. GWE can be performed repeatedly without compromisingcatheter outcomes.
机译:背景:本研究的目的是比较通过导丝交换(GWE)或从头插入(DN)进行锁骨下静脉置管的结果和生存率。材料与方法:本研究以回顾性方式进行。回顾了2001年4月1日至2004年9月30日期间在我院接受经皮锁骨下静脉穿刺再行血液透析的36例患者的病历。所有患者在本研究所至少有2次导管插入记录。使用x2检验比较了GWE和DN组之间不良事件(感染,血栓形成)的发生率。使用逻辑回归模型分析不良事件发生的预测因素。使用Cox比例风险模型研究无不良事件导管天数的预测因素。计算Kaplan-Meire生存曲线,并使用对数秩检验进行比较。结果:信息来自98导管(DN 41,GWE组57)。在该队列中,平均导管使用量为每位患者2.8 +/- 0.9个装置,平均导管留置天数为125.4 +/- 129.5天。我们发现,GWE组的血栓形成率普遍较低(DN组为49.1%,而DN组为85.4%,P <0.000)。手术方式是导致导管血栓形成的重要危险因素(GWE vs. DN,优势比= 0.261,P = 0.05)。 GWE的精算生存率≥30天,为85.4%; >或= 60天,占75.5%; >或= 90天,64.5%; >或= 180天,即44.3%。 DN的精算生存率≥30天,为70.7%; >或60天,占58.5%; >或导管具有明显更高的导管存活率(P = 0.0009)。 Mahukar导管(危险比0.514,P = 0.03),非电击(危险比3.358,P = 0.04)和年龄较大(危险比0.958,P = 0.026)是无不良事件导管剩余天数的预测指标。结论:我们建议,当不可避免地需要进行改良的锁骨下静脉置管时,GWE可能比DN插入更为有利。 GWE可以重复执行,而不会影响导管的治疗效果。

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