Suppr超能文献

小隧道式中心静脉导管作为新生儿患者标准血液透析导管的替代方案。

Small tunneled central venous catheters as an alternative to a standard hemodialysis catheter in neonatal patients.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Children's of Alabama, 1600 7th Ave. S., Lowder Building Suite 300, Birmingham AL 35233, United States.

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Nephrology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States; Pediatric Center for Acute Nephrology, Children's of Alabama, United States.

出版信息

J Pediatr Surg. 2021 Dec;56(12):2219-2223. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.03.047. Epub 2021 Mar 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is difficult in neonates for several reasons, including problems with catheter placement and maintenance. We sought to compare outcomes between standard hemodialysis catheters (HDC) and 6Fr-tunneled central venous catheters (TC-6Fr).

METHODS

We evaluated neonates who received CRRT from December 2013 - January 2018. All patients received CRRT with the Aquadex (Baxter Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota) circuit. Data regarding patient demographics, CRRT indication, catheter days, reason for removal, and catheter-specific complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-six catheters were placed in 26 neonates; nine of these were 6Fr-tunneled catheters. The median age and mean weight at CRRT initiation was 9.5 days (IQR 4-31) and 3.5 kg (+/- 0.6 kg), respectively. TC-6Fr lasted longer (median of 28 days vs 10 days, p = 0.02), required fewer revisions (0 vs 0.16/10 catheter days) and were less commonly removed due to bleeding complications (0% vs 10.8%), occlusion (11.1% vs 18.9%), or malposition (0% vs 8.1%); none of these differences were statistically significant. TC-6Fr were associated with higher infection rates (33.3% vs 0%, p = 0.01) than HDC.

CONCLUSIONS

TC-6Fr use resulted in less need for catheter revisions and provided longer-lasting vascular access, which may influence infection rates. This catheter provides neonates in need of CRRT more reliable vascular access.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

摘要

背景/目的:连续肾脏替代疗法(CRRT)在新生儿中由于多种原因难以实施,包括导管放置和维护方面的问题。我们旨在比较标准血液透析导管(HDC)和 6Fr 隧道式中心静脉导管(TC-6Fr)的治疗结果。

方法

我们评估了 2013 年 12 月至 2018 年 1 月期间接受 CRRT 的新生儿。所有患者均使用 Aquadex(百特公司,明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市)回路接受 CRRT。分析了患者人口统计学、CRRT 适应证、导管天数、拔除原因以及导管特异性并发症的数据。

结果

26 例新生儿共放置 46 根导管,其中 9 根为 6Fr 隧道式导管。CRRT 开始时的中位年龄和平均体重分别为 9.5 天(IQR 4-31)和 3.5 公斤(+/-0.6 公斤)。TC-6Fr 的持续时间更长(中位数 28 天 vs 10 天,p=0.02),需要更少的修订(0 次 vs 0.16/10 导管天数),且因出血并发症(0% vs 10.8%)、闭塞(11.1% vs 18.9%)或错位(0% vs 8.1%)而拔除的频率较低;这些差异均无统计学意义。TC-6Fr 的感染率(33.3% vs 0%,p=0.01)高于 HDC。

结论

与 HDC 相比,TC-6Fr 的使用减少了导管修订的需求,并提供了更持久的血管通路,这可能影响感染率。这种导管可为需要 CRRT 的新生儿提供更可靠的血管通路。

证据水平

III。

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