Chau Alex, Hernandez Jose Alberto, Pimpalwar Sheena, Ashton Daniel, Kukreja Kamlesh
Department of Pediatric Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital, 6701 Fannin St., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Pediatr Radiol. 2018 Jun;48(6):889-894. doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-4090-3. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Femoral tunneled central line placement in the pediatric population offers an alternative means for intravenous (IV) access, but there is concern for higher complication and infection rates when placed at bedside.
To describe the complications and infection outcomes of primary femoral tunneled central venous catheter placement in the interventional radiology suite compared to the portable bedside location at a single tertiary pediatric institution.
We conducted a retrospective review comparing interventional radiology suites vs. bedside primary tunneled common femoral vein central line placement (January 2014 to December 2015). We identified 244 primary femoral placements in pediatric patients, ages 1 day to 18 years, using our electronic medical record and collected into a Research Electronic Data Capture. We compared categorical variables using the Fisher exact test. We compared continuous variables using the Wilcoxon rank test.
In total, 2,375 pediatric patients received peripherally inserted and central lines; 244 of these were primary femoral tunneled central venous catheters (in 140 boys and 104 girls). In 140 children (mean age: 206 days), lines were inserted in the interventional radiology (IR) suite (technical success of 100%), with 14 (10.0%) complications including infection (n=7), malposition (n=2), bleeding (n=0), thrombosis (n=1) and line occlusion (n=4). The infection rate was 2.1 per 1,000 line days. In 104 children (mean age: 231 days), lines were placed at bedside (technical success 100%) with 14 (13.3%) complications including infection (n=3), malposition (n=5), bleeding (n=0), thrombosis (n=2) and line occlusion (n=4). The infection rate was 0.78 per 1,000 line days. The total line days were 7,109, of which 3,258 were in the IR suite and 3,851 in the bedside group. There was no statistical significance for complication rate (P=0.55) or infection rate (P=0.57) between bedside and interventional suite placements.
In a cohort of children receiving primary femoral tunneled central venous catheters, the complication and infection rates in a bedside setting are not significantly increased compared to the lines placed in an IR suite. The perception of increased infection and complications from bedside-placed tunneled central venous catheters appears to be hyperbolized.
儿科患者股静脉隧道式中心静脉置管为静脉输液提供了一种替代途径,但在床边置管时,人们担心并发症和感染率会更高。
描述在一家三级儿科机构中,与便携式床边置管相比,在介入放射科进行原发性股静脉隧道式中心静脉导管置管的并发症和感染情况。
我们进行了一项回顾性研究,比较介入放射科与床边原发性隧道式股总静脉中心静脉置管情况(2014年1月至2015年12月)。通过电子病历识别出年龄在1天至18岁的儿科患者中的244例原发性股静脉置管,并将其纳入研究电子数据采集系统。我们使用Fisher精确检验比较分类变量,使用Wilcoxon秩和检验比较连续变量。
共有2375例儿科患者接受了外周静脉穿刺置管和中心静脉置管;其中244例为原发性股静脉隧道式中心静脉导管(140例男孩和104例女孩)。140名儿童(平均年龄:206天)在介入放射科(IR)进行置管(技术成功率100%),出现14例(10.0%)并发症,包括感染(n = 7)、位置不当(n = 2)、出血(n = 0)、血栓形成(n = 1)和导管堵塞(n = 4)。感染率为每1000导管日2.1例。104名儿童(平均年龄:231天)在床边置管(技术成功率100%),出现14例(13.3%)并发症,包括感染(n = 3)、位置不当(n = 5)、出血(n = 0)、血栓形成(n = 2)和导管堵塞(n = 4)。感染率为每1000导管日0.78例。总导管日数为7109天,其中介入放射科为3258天,床边组为3851天。床边置管与介入放射科置管在并发症发生率(P = 0.55)或感染率(P = 0.57)方面无统计学差异。
在接受原发性股静脉隧道式中心静脉导管置管的儿童队列中,床边置管与在介入放射科置管相比,并发症和感染率没有显著增加。对于床边放置的隧道式中心静脉导管感染和并发症增加的看法似乎有些夸大了。