Intensive Care Unit, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2024 May 17;14(5):e081749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749.
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.
A propensity-score matched cohort study.
A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia.
In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device.
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).
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).
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.
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。
倾向评分匹配队列研究。
澳大利亚西南悉尼的一家 980 床三级转诊医院。
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。
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)。
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。