Suppr超能文献

肿瘤患者中心静脉置管的使用和并发症。

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients.

机构信息

Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada.

Department of Oncology, Niagara Health, St. Catharines, ON L2S 0A9, Canada.

出版信息

Curr Oncol. 2021 Jan 10;28(1):367-377. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28010039.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications.

METHOD

Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits.

CONCLUSIONS

PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.

摘要

目的

描述中心静脉通路装置(CVAD)在门诊肿瘤患者中的使用情况,并评估并发症发生率。

方法

对 2018 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间在 Walker 家庭癌症中心(WFCC)接受系统治疗的 CVAD 肿瘤患者进行单机构回顾性研究。

结果

共对 305 名患者的 480 个 CVAD 进行了放置,其中 408 个(85%)为外周插入中心导管(PICC),72 个(15%)为植入式血管通路装置(PORT)。早期和晚期并发症的发生率分别为 9%和 24%。对于整个队列,静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)的发生率为 16%,其中 9%为 CVAD 相关血栓形成(CRTs),7%为远处 VTE。PICC 和 PORT 的 CRT 发生率相似(9%对 7%)。6%的 CVAD 发生感染(即局部感染和菌血症),PICC 和 PORT 的总感染率分别为每 1000 天 0.43 和 0.26。中心静脉相关血流感染(CLABSI)的发生率 PICC 高于 PORT,分别为每 1000 天 0.22 与 0.08。PICC 的过早导管移除率为 26%,PORT 为 18%。PORT 需更多的额外医院就诊。

结论

PICC 比 PORT 更频繁地使用,且过早移除的比例更高。两种 CVAD 类型的 VTE 和 CRT 发生率相似。PORT 每 1000 天的感染率较低。然而,PORT 相关并发症的处理需要更多次的医院和肿瘤科就诊。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

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