Suppr超能文献

中线与外周静脉置入中心静脉导管的静脉血栓并发症比较:中线导管是更安全的选择吗?

Comparison of Venous Thrombosis Complications in Midlines Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are Midlines the Safer Option?

机构信息

1 William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.

2 Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, MI, USA.

出版信息

Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jan-Dec;25:1076029619839150. doi: 10.1177/1076029619839150.

Abstract

Catheter-related (CR) thrombosis is a significant complication of midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Limited existing data for MCs suggest a favorable complication profile for MCs. To compare incidence of CR thrombosis between MCs and PICCs and to evaluate the impact of quantity of lumens and catheter diameter on CR thrombosis. This was a retrospective comparison spanning 13 months of MCs and PICCs for symptomatic CR thrombosis at an 1100 bed tertiary care academic medical center. Adult patients who had an MC or a PICC placed by the were included. Data were collected using the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. A total of 2577 catheters were included in the analysis with 1094 MCs and 1483 PICCs. One hundred thirty (11.88%) MCs developed CR thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] or superficial venous thrombophlebitis [SVT]) as compared to 112 (6.88%) PICCs (odds ratio [OR]: 1.82; P < .0001). Midline catheters had a 53% greater odds of developing CR DVT than PICCs (7.04% MCs and 4.72% PICCs; OR: 1.53; P = .0126). For CR SVT, MCs have a 2.29-fold greater odds of developing CR SVT than PICCs (4.84% MCs and 2.16% PICCs; OR: 2.29; P = .0002). For MCs and PICCs, the incidence of CR thrombosis was 13.50% for double lumen/5F lines and was 6.92% for single lumen/4F lines (OR: 2.10; P = <.0001). Symptomatic CR thrombosis is a serious, life-threatening complication that occurs more frequently in MCs compared to PICCs. Inserters should consider placement of single lumen catheters with the smallest diameter to reduce this risk when a midline is used.

摘要

导管相关性(CR)血栓形成是中线导管(MCs)和外周中心静脉导管(PICCs)的重要并发症。有限的现有 MCs 数据表明 MCs 的并发症情况较好。本研究旨在比较 MCs 和 PICCs 之间 CR 血栓形成的发生率,并评估导管腔数量和导管直径对 CR 血栓形成的影响。这是一项回顾性比较研究,比较了 1100 张床位的三级护理学术医疗中心 13 个月内 MCs 和 PICCs 出现症状性 CR 血栓形成的情况。纳入接受 MC 或 PICC 置管的成年患者。使用电子病历收集数据。使用 SAS 软件进行统计分析。共纳入 2577 根导管,其中 MC 1094 根,PICC 1483 根。130 根(11.88%)MC 发生 CR 血栓形成(深静脉血栓形成[DVT]或浅静脉血栓性静脉炎[SVT]),而 112 根(6.88%)PICC 发生 CR 血栓形成(OR:1.82;P<.0001)。MC 发生 CR DVT 的可能性比 PICCs 高 53%(MCs 为 7.04%,PICCs 为 4.72%;OR:1.53;P=.0126)。对于 CR SVT,MC 发生 CR SVT 的可能性比 PICCs 高 2.29 倍(MCs 为 4.84%,PICCs 为 2.16%;OR:2.29;P=.0002)。对于 MCs 和 PICCs,双腔/5F 导管的 CR 血栓形成发生率为 13.50%,单腔/4F 导管的 CR 血栓形成发生率为 6.92%(OR:2.10;P<.0001)。症状性 CR 血栓形成是一种严重的、危及生命的并发症,在 MCs 中比 PICCs 更常见。在使用中线导管时,插入器应考虑使用最小直径的单腔导管以降低这种风险。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

5
Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity.上肢深静脉血栓形成。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Apr 7;114(14):244-249. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0244.
7
The Midline Catheter: A Clinical Review.中线导管:临床综述。
J Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;51(3):252-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.05.029. Epub 2016 Jul 5.

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