Suppr超能文献

经隧道股静脉插入中心导管与经外周静脉插入中心导管的结局比较:倾向评分匹配队列研究。

Comparison of outcomes from tunnelled femorally inserted central catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

机构信息

Intensive Care Unit, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.

Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2024 May 17;14(5):e081749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities.

DESIGN

A propensity-score matched cohort study.

SETTING

A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

RESULTS

The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference -0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI -2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI -6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference -0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.

摘要

目的

比较接受隧道式股静脉插入中心导管(tFICC)和上肢外周插入中心导管(PICC)的患者的导管相关结局。

设计

倾向评分匹配队列研究。

地点

澳大利亚西南悉尼的一家 980 床三级转诊医院。

参与者

因需要中心静脉置管而被转至医院中央静脉通路服务的住院患者。

主要和次要结果

主要研究结果为全因导管失败的发生率。次要结果包括因疑似或确诊导管相关性感染、导管留置时间和确诊的上肢或下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)而拔除导管的发生率。

结果

在匹配的 tFICC 和 PICC 队列中,全因导管失败的总发生率分别为 2.4/1000 导管日(95%CI 1.1 至 4.4)和 3.0/1000 导管日(95%CI 2.3 至 3.9),比较两组之间无差异(差异-0.63/1000 导管日,95%CI-2.32 至 1.06)。我们发现导管留置时间(平均差异 14.2 天,95%CI-6.6 至 35.0,p=0.910)或两组在留置第一个月内的累积失败概率(p=0.358)之间无差异。在需要因确诊的中心静脉相关血流感染而拔除导管的发生率方面,两组之间也未观察到显著差异(差异 0.13/1000 导管日,95%CI-0.36 至 0.63,p=0.896)。同样,两组之间确诊的导管相关性 DVT 也无显著差异(差异-0.11/1000 导管日,95%CI-0.26 至 0.04,p=1.00)。

结论

在接受匹配的 tFICC 和 PICC 患者队列中,导管相关结局无差异,这表明当上肢或胸部静脉不适宜进行导管插入时,tFICCs 可能是血管通路的一种替代选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5eca/11103188/982ecab5e167/bmjopen-2023-081749f01.jpg

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