Suppr超能文献

用于输注静脉营养的细孔外周导管与中心静脉导管的比较

Fine-bore peripheral catheters versus central venous catheters for delivery of intravenous nutrition.

作者信息

Kohlhardt S R, Smith R C, Wright C R, Sucic K A

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Sydney, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Nutrition. 1992 Nov-Dec;8(6):412-7.

PMID:1486248
Abstract

We present a descriptive study of 229 consecutive inpatients requiring intravenous nutrition. These patients received either complete peripheral intravenous nutrition via a fine-bore silicone catheter (n = 80) or short Teflon catheter (n = 15) or received conventional central intravenous nutrition (n = 134). Nutrient delivery was similar for both systems, providing 0.2-0.4 g N.kg-1 x day-1 and 0.13-0.15 mJ.kg-1 x day-1 from preparations containing 4.3 MJ/L total energy (65-75% lipid: 25-35% glucose for peripheral support and 100% glucose for central delivery) with 6 g N/L. We compared the incidence of catheter complication and the probability of catheter function over time for the peripheral and conventional central systems. Venous access complications were seen only with central venous catheterization (10.4%). Chemical phlebitis occurred in 17% of fine-bore catheters and 91.4% of Teflon catheters. The infective phlebitis rate of fine-bore silicone catheters was 1.02% and daily risk of phlebitis 0.016%, with no instance of device-related bacteremia or sepsis. Central-line microbial contamination (21.7%) and catheter-related sepsis (3%) were significantly greater (p < 0.0005, chi 2 goodness-of-fit test) than with fine-bore silicone and Teflon catheters. The probability of complication-free function against time was similar (0.75 < p < 0.90, log-rank test) in fine-bore silicone catheters and central venous catheters. We conclude that fine-bore silicone catheters provide long-term phlebitis-free delivery of complete peripheral intravenous nutrition.

摘要

我们对229例连续住院且需要静脉营养的患者进行了一项描述性研究。这些患者要么通过细孔径硅胶导管接受完全肠外静脉营养(n = 80),要么通过短聚四氟乙烯导管接受完全肠外静脉营养(n = 15),要么接受传统的中心静脉营养(n = 134)。两种系统的营养输送情况相似,从总能量为4.3 MJ/L的制剂中提供0.2 - 0.4 g氮·kg⁻¹·天⁻¹和0.13 - 0.15 mJ·kg⁻¹·天⁻¹(外周支持时脂质占65 - 75%、葡萄糖占25 - 35%,中心静脉输注时为100%葡萄糖),含氮量为6 g/L。我们比较了外周和传统中心静脉系统导管并发症的发生率以及导管随时间保持功能的概率。静脉通路并发症仅在中心静脉置管时出现(10.4%)。化学性静脉炎在细孔径导管中发生率为17%,在聚四氟乙烯导管中为91.4%。细孔径硅胶导管的感染性静脉炎发生率为1.02%,每日静脉炎风险为0.016%,未出现与装置相关的菌血症或脓毒症。中心静脉导管微生物污染(21.7%)和导管相关脓毒症(3%)显著高于细孔径硅胶导管和聚四氟乙烯导管(p < 0.0005,卡方拟合优度检验)。细孔径硅胶导管和中心静脉导管在无并发症功能随时间变化的概率方面相似(0.75 < p < 0.90,对数秩检验)。我们得出结论,细孔径硅胶导管可长期无静脉炎地进行完全肠外静脉营养输注。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验