首页> 外文期刊>Clinical neurology and neurosurgery >Comparison of catheter-related large vein thrombosis in centrally inserted versus peripherally inserted central venous lines in the neurological intensive care unit
【24h】

Comparison of catheter-related large vein thrombosis in centrally inserted versus peripherally inserted central venous lines in the neurological intensive care unit

机译:神经重症监护病房中心插入和外周插入中心静脉导管相关导管大静脉血栓形成的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To compare cumulative complication rates of peripherally (PICC) and centrally (CICVC) inserted central venous catheters, including catheter-related large vein thrombosis (CRLVT), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), and line insertion-related complications in neurological intensive care patients. Methods: Retrospective cohort study and detailed chart review for 431 consecutive PICCs and 141 CICVCs placed in patients under neurological intensive care from March 2008 through February 2010. Cumulative incidence of CRLVT, CLABSI, and line insertion-related complications were compared between PICC and CICVC groups. Risk factors for CRLVT including mannitol therapy during dwell time, previous history of venous thromboembolism, surgery longer than 1 h during dwell time, and line placement in a paretic arm were also compared between groups. Results: During the study period, 431 unique PICCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 8.4%, CLABSI 2.8%, and line insertion-related complications 0.0%. During the same period, 141 unique CICVCs were placed with cumulative incidence of symptomatic thrombosis of 1.4%, CLABSI 1.4%, and line insertion-related complications 0.7%. There was a statistically significant difference in CRLVT with no difference in CLABSI or line insertion-related complications. Conclusions: In neurological critical care patients, CICVCs appear to have a better risk profile compared to PICCs, with a decreased risk of CRLVT. As use of PICCs in critical care patients increases, a prospective randomized trial comparing PICCs and CICVCs in neurological critical care patients is necessary to assist in choosing the appropriate catheter and to minimize risks of morbidity and mortality associated with central venous access.
机译:目的:比较外周(PICC)和中央(CICVC)插入的中心静脉导管的累积并发症发生率,包括导管相关大静脉血栓形成(CRLVT),中心线相关血流感染(CLABSI)以及与导管插入相关的并发症神经重症监护患者。方法:回顾性队列研究,并于2008年3月至2010年2月对神经重症监护患者中连续放置的431例PICC和141例CICVC进行详细回顾性研究。比较PICC组与CICVC组CRLVT,CLABSI和行插入相关并发症的累积发生率。两组之间还比较了CRLVT的危险因素,包括停留时间的甘露醇治疗,静脉血栓栓塞的既往史,停留时间长于1 h的手术以及在假性臂中放线的风险。结果:在研究期间,放置了431个独特的PICC,症状性血栓形成的累积发生率为8.4%,CLABSI为2.8%,与行插入相关的并发症为0.0%。在同一时期,放置了141个独特的CICVC,症状性血栓形成的累积发生率为1.4%,CLABSI为1.4%,与行插入相关的并发症为0.7%。 CRLVT有统计学上的显着差异,而CLABSI或与行插入相关的并发症没有差异。结论:在神经重症患者中,与PICC相比,CICVCs似乎具有更好的风险特征,而CRLVT的风险降低。随着在重症监护患者中使用PICC的增加,有必要在神经重症患者中进行PICC和CICVC的前瞻性随机试验,以帮助选择合适的导管,并最大程度降低与中心静脉通路相关的发病和死亡风险。

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