首页> 外文期刊>International journal of nursing studies >The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: A retrospective, observational study
【24h】

The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: A retrospective, observational study

机译:回顾性观察研究中线与外周中央导管相比对成人囊性纤维化患者的安全性和有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Background: Intravenous antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Midlines are a type of vascular access device (VAD) used exclusively in one treatment facility within Australia, most other centres use peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Objective: To ascertain the safety and efficacy of midlines for CF patients receiving intravenous antibiotics. Design: Retrospective observational. Setting: A large, major metropolitan teaching hospital in Adelaide, South Australia. Participants: Adult patients with a diagnosis of CF, who had a PICC or midline inserted for the commencement of antibiotic therapy during the period 2004-2010 to treat a respiratory exacerbation. Methods: Medical records and hospital reports were used to record rates of adverse events and unexpected removal of VADs. The primary outcome was a composite measure of adverse events (catheter-related blood stream infection, deep vein thrombosis, occlusion, pain, infiltration, bleeding, phlebitis, catheter leakage and dislodgement) and whether the VAD was removed unexpectedly. Results: There were 231 midlines and 97 PICCs inserted into 64 patients (39 male and 25 female; age range 18-47 years old). Presented as per 1000 VAD days, patients with PICCs and midlines had similar rates of adverse events (14 and 11 adverse events per 1000 VAD days, respectively). Unexpected removal was higher for patients with midlines (6.90 per 1000 VAD days) than for PICCs (2.89 per 1000 VAD days). Incident rate ratios (IRRs) showed that patients with midlines and PICCs had similar rates of adverse events (IRR 1.18, P= 0.617, CI 0.62-2.22) although the removal rate of patients with midlines was twice that of patients with PICCs (IRR 2.24, P= 0.079, CI 0.91-5.56). As an absolute risk there were only 4.09 more cases of removal for patients with midlines per 1000 VAD days than those with PICCs. Conclusions: Midlines may be an alternative to PICCs for adult CF patients although further research is required with a larger sample size to enable definitive conclusions.
机译:背景:静脉抗生素是治疗囊性纤维化(CF)患者的基石。中线是一种仅在澳大利亚的一个治疗机构中使用的血管通路装置(VAD),大多数其他中心都使用外围插入的中央导管(PICC)。目的:确定中线在接受静脉抗生素治疗的CF患者中的安全性和有效性。设计:回顾性观察。地点:南澳大利亚州阿德莱德市的一家大型大型城市教学医院。研究对象:2004年至2010年期间诊断为CF的成年患者,他们插入PICC或中线以开始抗生素治疗,以治疗呼吸道急性发作。方法:使用病历和医院报告记录不良事件发生率和意外移除VAD。主要结果是对不良事件(导管相关的血流感染,深静脉血栓形成,闭塞,疼痛,浸润,出血,静脉炎,导管渗漏和移位)进行综合测量,以及是否意外移除了VAD。结果:64例患者(其中男39例,女25例;年龄18-47岁)插入了231条中线和97条PICC。 PICC和中线患者每1000 VAD天出现一次不良事件的发生率相似(每1000 VAD天分别发生14和11次不良事件)。中线患者的意外移除率更高(每1000 VAD天6.90)比PICC(每1000 VAD天2.89)更高。事故发生率比率(IRR)显示,中线患者和PICC患者的不良事件发生率相似(IRR 1.18,P = 0.617,CI 0.62-2.22),尽管中线患者的清除率是PICC患者的两倍(IRR 2.24) ,P = 0.079,CI 0.91-5.56)。作为绝对风险,每1000 VAD天中线患者的切除病例比PICC患者多4.09例。结论:中线可能是成人CF患者的PICC替代方案,尽管需要进行更大的样本量才能得出明确的结论,但仍需要进一步的研究。

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