• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

葡萄糖酸氯己定不耐受对慢性HeartMate II左心室辅助装置支持期间导线感染的影响。

Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic HeartMate II left ventricular assist device support.

作者信息

Son Andre Y, Stein Louis H, DeAnda Abe, Katz Stuart D, Smith Deane E, Reyentovich Alex, Balsam Leora B

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, NYU-Langone Medical Center, New York, New York - USA.

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas - USA.

出版信息

Int J Artif Organs. 2017 Jan 13;39(11):570-574. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000539. Epub 2017 Jan 12.

DOI:10.5301/ijao.5000539
PMID:28085173
Abstract

PURPOSE

Driveline exit site (DLES) management following left ventricular assist device implantation is important for preventing driveline infection (DLI). While chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is generally recommended for DLES antisepsis, CHG intolerance can develop, resulting in a need for alternative antiseptics. We reviewed our institutional experience with DLES antisepsis methods in HeartMate II patients, comparing outcomes of patients with and without CHG intolerance.

METHODS

Between October 2011 and March 2016, 44 patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation. CHG was used for DLES antisepsis and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was used in patients with CHG intolerance. DLI was defined by Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) criteria.

RESULTS

Of 44 patients, 37 (84%) received CHG and 7 (16%) received PVP-I antisepsis due to CHG intolerance. Five patients (11.4%) developed a DLI, with an event per patient-year rate of 0.07. Median length of support was 521 days (interquartile range 202-881 days). Characteristics were similar between patients with and without DLI. However, a larger proportion of patients with DLI had CHG intolerance compared to patients without DLI (60.0% vs. 10.3%, p:0.05). Causative organisms were Staphylococcus aureus in CHG-intolerant patients and Stenotrophomonas and Acinetobacter in CHG-tolerant patients. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test demonstrated decreased infection-free days in patients using PVP-I rather than CHG (p:0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

While the etiology of DLI is multifactorial, CHG intolerance appears to be a risk factor. Our findings highlight the need for larger studies comparing the efficacy of antiseptics for DLES care, particularly for patients with CHG contraindications.

摘要

目的

左心室辅助装置植入术后的 driveline 出口部位(DLES)管理对于预防 driveline 感染(DLI)很重要。虽然通常推荐使用葡萄糖酸氯己定(CHG)进行 DLES 消毒,但可能会出现 CHG 不耐受情况,从而需要使用替代消毒剂。我们回顾了本机构在 HeartMate II 患者中使用 DLES 消毒方法的经验,比较了有和没有 CHG 不耐受患者的结局。

方法

2011 年 10 月至 2016 年 3 月期间,44 例患者接受了初次 HeartMate II 植入。CHG 用于 DLES 消毒,CHG 不耐受的患者使用聚维酮碘(PVP-I)。DLI 根据机构间机械辅助循环支持注册中心(INTERMACS)标准定义。

结果

44 例患者中,37 例(84%)接受 CHG 消毒,7 例(16%)因 CHG 不耐受接受 PVP-I 消毒。5 例患者(11.4%)发生了 DLI,每位患者每年的事件发生率为 0.07。中位支持时间为 521 天(四分位间距 202 - 881 天)。发生和未发生 DLI 的患者特征相似。然而,与未发生 DLI 的患者相比,发生 DLI 的患者中 CHG 不耐受的比例更高(60.0% 对 10.3%,p:0.05)。CHG 不耐受患者的致病微生物为金黄色葡萄球菌,CHG 耐受患者的致病微生物为嗜麦芽窄食单胞菌和不动杆菌。Kaplan-Meier 方法和对数秩检验表明,使用 PVP-I 而非 CHG 的患者无感染天数减少(p:0.01)。

结论

虽然 DLI 的病因是多因素的,但 CHG 不耐受似乎是一个危险因素。我们的研究结果凸显了开展更大规模研究以比较消毒剂用于 DLES 护理疗效的必要性,特别是对于有 CHG 禁忌证的患者。

相似文献

1
Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate intolerance on driveline infection during chronic HeartMate II left ventricular assist device support.葡萄糖酸氯己定不耐受对慢性HeartMate II左心室辅助装置支持期间导线感染的影响。
Int J Artif Organs. 2017 Jan 13;39(11):570-574. doi: 10.5301/ijao.5000539. Epub 2017 Jan 12.
2
Driveline Site Is Not a Predictor of Infection After Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.轴突部位不是导致心室辅助装置植入后感染的预测因子。
ASAIO J. 2018 Sep/Oct;64(5):616-622. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000690.
3
Special Treatment and Wound Care of the Driveline Exit Site after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.左心室辅助装置植入术后驱动线出口部位的特殊处理与伤口护理
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Dec;63(8):670-4. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1554961. Epub 2015 Jul 15.
4
Prevention and early treatment of driveline infections in ventricular assist device patients - The DESTINE staging proposal and the first standard of care protocol.预防和早期治疗心室辅助装置患者的移植物感染——DESTINE 分期建议和首个标准治疗方案。
J Crit Care. 2020 Apr;56:106-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.12.014. Epub 2019 Dec 17.
5
Ventricular Assist Device Driveline Infections: A Systematic Review.心室辅助装置驱动线感染:一项系统综述
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Sep;70(6):493-504. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1731823. Epub 2021 Sep 14.
6
Mechanical Characterization of Anchoring Devices for the Prevention of Driveline Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.左心室辅助装置患者预防驱动线感染的锚定装置的力学特性
ASAIO J. 2024 Apr 1;70(4):249-256. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000002111. Epub 2023 Dec 11.
7
Driveline infections in left ventricular assist devices: implications for destination therapy.左心室辅助装置中的传动系统感染:对目的地治疗的影响。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Nov;94(5):1381-6. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.074. Epub 2012 Jul 20.
8
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Povidone-Iodine Versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate With Isopropyl Alcohol for Preoperative Vaginal Antisepsis.聚维酮碘与葡萄糖酸氯己定乙醇用于术前阴道消毒的随机对照试验。
AORN J. 2024 Apr;119(4):261-274. doi: 10.1002/aorn.14111.
9
Comparing velour versus silicone interfaces at the driveline exit site of HeartMate II devices: infection rates, histopathology, and ultrastructural aspects.比较HeartMate II设备动力线出口部位的天鹅绒与硅胶界面:感染率、组织病理学及超微结构方面
Cardiovasc Pathol. 2015 Mar-Apr;24(2):71-5. doi: 10.1016/j.carpath.2014.07.011. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
10
The Comparative Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Povidone-iodine Antiseptics for the Prevention of Infection in Clean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.氯己定葡萄糖酸盐和聚维酮碘消毒剂预防清洁手术感染的比较疗效:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e481-e488. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004076.

引用本文的文献

1
Non-patient factors associated with infections in LVAD recipients: A scoping review.与 LVAD 受者感染相关的非患者因素:范围综述。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2022 Jan;41(1):1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.10.006. Epub 2021 Oct 22.
2
Driveline exit-site care protocols in patients with left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review.左心室辅助装置患者的外接管出口部位护理方案:系统评价。
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Sep 11;60(3):506-515. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab195.
3
In Full Flow: Left Ventricular Assist Device Infections in the Modern Era.
全面解析:现代左心室辅助装置感染
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 17;7(5):ofaa124. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa124. eCollection 2020 May.