首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical apheresis. >Tissue plasminogen activator vs heparin for locking central venous catheters between apheresis procedures
【24h】

Tissue plasminogen activator vs heparin for locking central venous catheters between apheresis procedures

机译:组织纤溶酶原激活剂与肝素用于锁骨内静脉导管的肝素

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background Central venous catheters (CVCs) for apheresis procedures require regular locking/flushes to maintain adequate flow rates. Literature comparing locking solutions for apheresis, where the time interval between procedures can be longer than for hemodialysis (many days to weeks), is lacking. In this study, catheter malfunction rates using recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt‐PA) vs heparin for locking CVC between apheresis procedures were compared. Study Design and Methods A retrospective review of 93 extracorporeal photopheresis procedures in 10 patients was performed at our institution. About 1000?U/mL heparin or 2 mg rt‐PA was used as the locking solution. Heparin locks were changed at least once per week and rt‐PA locks could be left in place for up to 4 weeks. Following these locks, inadequate blood flow noted on accessing CVC and/or during the procedure was scored on as: no issues, some issues, or significant issues. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate for potential statistical difference in outcomes. Cost analysis was also performed. Results No statistically significant difference was noted in outcomes between heparin and rt‐PA lock ( P value?=?0.15). Total cost of heparin lock administration ($91‐$362.50) was found to be more than rt‐PA lock ($76) when more than one flush was needed between procedures. Conclusions For apheresis use, rt‐PA and heparin CVC locks seem to have similar outcomes in preventing CVC malfunction. The convenience of not needing any flushes between procedures and overall cost of administering fewer locks favors rt‐PA use when the interval between procedures is 7 days.
机译:抽象背景中央静脉导管(CVC)适用于采摘程序需要定期锁定/冲洗以保持足够的流速。文献比较锁定溶液的吸收溶液,其中程序之间的时间间隔比对于血液透析(数天至周)而言,缺乏。在该研究中,比较了使用重组组织纤溶酶原激活剂(RT-PA)的导管故障率VS肝素用于锁定在容器过程之间的CVC。研究设计与方法对10例患者的93例体外光学灌注程序进行了回顾性综述。大约1000℃?U / ml肝素或2mg RT-PA用作锁定溶液。每周至少改变一次肝素锁定,RT-PA锁可以留下长达4周。在这些锁之后,在访问CVC和/或过程中注明的血流不足以:没有:没有问题,一些问题或重大问题。二进制逻辑回归用于评估结果的潜在统计差异。也进行了成本分析。结果在肝素和RT-PA锁定之间的结果没有统计学显着差异(P值?= 0.15)。发现肝素锁定管理总额(91- $ 362.50)被发现超过RT-PA锁定($ 76),程序在程序之间需要多于一个齐平时。对于容易内使用,RT-PA和肝素CVC锁的结论似乎在预防CVC故障时具有相似的结果。便利性不需要在程序之间的程序和整体成本之间的次数较少的锁定时使用RT-PA在程序之间的间隔& 7天内使用时使用。

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