Suppr超能文献

通过导丝将非隧道式血液透析导管更换为隧道式血液透析导管的操作可以在不丧失通畅性的情况下进行。

Exchange over the guidewire from non-tunneled to tunneled hemodialysis catheters can be performed without patency loss.

作者信息

Park Hoon Suk, Choi Joonsung, Kim Hyung Wook, Baik Jun Hyun, Park Cheol Whee, Kim Young Ok, Yang Chul Woo, Jin Dong Chan

机构信息

1 Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

2 Department of Internal Medicine, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Suwon, Korea.

出版信息

J Vasc Access. 2018 May;19(3):252-257. doi: 10.1177/1129729817747541. Epub 2018 Mar 12.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The exchange from a non-tunneled hemodialysis catheter to a tunneled one over a guidewire using a previous venotomy has been reported to be safe. However, some concerns that it may increase infection risk prevent its clinical application. This approach seems particularly useful for acute kidney injury patients requiring initial renal replacement therapy, in whom we frequently worry about the choice of non-tunneled versus tunneled catheters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2012 to February 2016, 88 cases to receive the over-the-guidewire exchange method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter and 521 cases to receive de novo tunneled catheter placement from the hemodialysis vascular access cohort were compared retrospectively.

RESULTS

The immediate complication, later catheter dysfunction requiring replacement, and infection rates were comparable between the two groups. Newly placed tunneled catheter survival in the over-the-guidewire exchange group was comparable with survival in the de novo tunneled catheter group (p = 0.24). In addition, when we compared the same two methods among only intensive care unit patients; they remained similar (p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

An exchange with the over-the-guidewire method from a non-tunneled to a tunneled catheter was comparable to a de novo catheter placement technique. Therefore, this method should be viewed more favorably and should especially be considered for acute kidney injury patients.

摘要

目的

据报道,通过先前的静脉切开术,在导丝引导下将非隧道式血液透析导管更换为隧道式导管是安全的。然而,一些人担心这可能会增加感染风险,从而阻碍了其临床应用。这种方法对于需要初始肾脏替代治疗的急性肾损伤患者似乎特别有用,在这类患者中,我们常常担心非隧道式导管与隧道式导管的选择。

材料与方法

回顾性比较2012年3月至2016年2月期间,88例采用导丝引导下从非隧道式导管更换为隧道式导管的患者,以及521例血液透析血管通路队列中接受初次隧道式导管置入的患者。

结果

两组的即刻并发症、后期需要更换的导管功能障碍及感染率相当。导丝引导下更换组新置入的隧道式导管生存率与初次隧道式导管组的生存率相当(p = 0.24)。此外,当我们仅在重症监护病房患者中比较这两种方法时,结果仍然相似(p = 0.19)。

结论

导丝引导下从非隧道式导管更换为隧道式导管的方法与初次导管置入技术相当。因此,这种方法应得到更积极的看待,尤其应考虑用于急性肾损伤患者。

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