Suppr超能文献

成人囊性纤维化患者中线导管与外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管的安全性和有效性:一项回顾性观察研究。

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

作者信息

Sharp Rebecca, Esterman Adrian, McCutcheon Helen, Hearse Neville, Cummings Melita

机构信息

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

出版信息

Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 May;51(5):694-702. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.002. Epub 2013 Sep 14.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

静脉用抗生素是囊性纤维化(CF)患者治疗的基石。中线导管是一种血管通路装置(VAD),仅在澳大利亚的一家治疗机构使用,其他大多数中心使用外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)。

目的

确定中线导管用于接受静脉用抗生素治疗的CF患者的安全性和有效性。

设计

回顾性观察研究。

地点

南澳大利亚阿德莱德的一家大型都市教学医院。

参与者

2004年至2010年期间因治疗呼吸道加重而插入PICC或中线导管以开始抗生素治疗的成年CF患者。

方法

使用病历和医院报告记录不良事件发生率和VAD意外拔除情况。主要结局是不良事件的综合指标(导管相关血流感染、深静脉血栓形成、堵塞、疼痛、渗液、出血、静脉炎、导管渗漏和移位)以及VAD是否意外拔除。

结果

64例患者(39例男性和25例女性;年龄范围18至47岁)共插入231根中线导管和97根PICC。以每1000个VAD日计算,PICC患者和中线导管患者的不良事件发生率相似(分别为每1000个VAD日14次和11次不良事件)。中线导管患者的意外拔除率(每1000个VAD日6.90次)高于PICC患者(每1000个VAD日2.89次)。发生率比(IRR)显示,中线导管患者和PICC患者的不良事件发生率相似(IRR 1.18,P = 0.617,CI 0.62 - 2.22),尽管中线导管患者的拔除率是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个VAD日中线导管患者的拔除病例仅比PICC患者多4.09例。

结论

对于成年CF患者,中线导管可能是PICC的替代选择,尽管需要更大样本量的进一步研究才能得出明确结论。

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