• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

血管通路问题再探讨:多国癌症支持治疗协会(MASCC)的经验

Vascular access problems revisited: the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) experience.

作者信息

Freytes C O

机构信息

Bone Marrow Transplant Program, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 78284-7880, USA.

出版信息

Support Care Cancer. 1998 Jan;6(1):13-9. doi: 10.1007/s005200050126.

DOI:10.1007/s005200050126
PMID:9458531
Abstract

Despite the increased availability of vascular access devices, there is limited information regarding their pattern of use in the clinical setting or the criteria used for their utilization. To obtain this information, we sent questionnaires to MASCC members. Forty-five percent of the respondents stated that the decision to use vascular access devices depended on the drugs used at the beginning of therapy. Another 30% replied that the decision to use long-term vascular access devices depended on the status of the patient's veins at the beginning of therapy. Only 12% of those surveyed waited until all the veins were exhausted before considering using vascular access devices. Although more than half of the professionals surveyed used long-term vascular access devices in 50% or more of their patients with hematologic malignancies, only 20% used these devices in patients with solid tumors. Features considered most important when selecting long-term vascular access devices were durability of the device and ease of use for medical personnel. Major limitations of long-term vascular access devices were cost, closely followed by patient acceptance. The most common reasons for removal of vascular access devices were infection and thrombosis. We conclude that there is a lack of uniform criteria for the utilization of long-term vascular access devices. Cost is a major limitation to the wider use of this technology. More research is necessary to determine the optimal use of vascular access devices in patients with cancer.

摘要

尽管血管通路装置的可获得性有所增加,但关于其在临床环境中的使用模式或使用标准的信息却很有限。为了获取这些信息,我们向多支持性癌症护理协会(MASCC)的成员发送了调查问卷。45%的受访者表示,使用血管通路装置的决定取决于治疗开始时所使用的药物。另外30%的受访者回答说,使用长期血管通路装置的决定取决于治疗开始时患者的静脉状况。只有12%的受访者会等到所有静脉都无法使用后才考虑使用血管通路装置。尽管超过一半接受调查的专业人员在50%或更多的血液系统恶性肿瘤患者中使用了长期血管通路装置,但只有20%的人在实体瘤患者中使用这些装置。选择长期血管通路装置时认为最重要的特征是装置的耐用性和医护人员使用的便利性。长期血管通路装置的主要局限性是成本,紧随其后的是患者的接受度。移除血管通路装置最常见的原因是感染和血栓形成。我们得出结论,长期血管通路装置的使用缺乏统一标准。成本是这项技术更广泛应用的主要限制因素。需要进行更多研究以确定癌症患者血管通路装置的最佳使用方法。

相似文献

1
Vascular access problems revisited: the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) experience.血管通路问题再探讨:多国癌症支持治疗协会(MASCC)的经验
Support Care Cancer. 1998 Jan;6(1):13-9. doi: 10.1007/s005200050126.
2
Cost analysis of the Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) Graft compared to the tunneled dialysis catheter.血液透析可靠流出道(HeRO)移植物与带隧道的透析导管的成本分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Apr;63(4):1026-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.10.089. Epub 2016 Jan 26.
3
Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled silastic catheters. A safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term venous access.非隧道式硅橡胶导管感染率低且耐用性长。是长期静脉通路的一种安全且具成本效益的替代选择。
Arch Intern Med. 1993 Aug 9;153(15):1791-6.
4
Nurse and patient satisfaction with three types of venous access devices.护士和患者对三种静脉通路装置的满意度。
Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997 Jan-Feb;24(1 Suppl):34-40.
5
[Implantable catheter systems].[植入式导管系统]
Praxis (Bern 1994). 1998 Sep 2;87(36):1135-9.
6
[Access for starting kidney replacement therapy: vascular and peritoneal temporal access in pre-dialysis].[开始肾脏替代治疗的通路:透析前的血管和腹膜临时通路]
Nefrologia. 2008;28 Suppl 3:105-12.
7
Totally implanted device for long-term intravenous chemotherapy: experience in 123 adult patients with solid neoplasms.用于长期静脉化疗的完全植入式装置:123例成年实体瘤患者的经验
J Surg Oncol. 1996 Aug;62(4):273-8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199608)62:4<273::AID-JSO9>3.0.CO;2-3.
8
Vena cava filter practices of a regional vascular surgery society.一个地区血管外科学会的腔静脉滤器应用情况
Ann Vasc Surg. 2012 Jul;26(5):630-5. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.11.033.
9
Comparison of totally implanted reservoirs with external catheters as venous access devices in pediatric oncologic patients.小儿肿瘤患者中完全植入式贮器与外置导管作为静脉通路装置的比较。
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988 Aug;167(2):141-4.
10
New options for central venous access in cancer chemotherapy. Multiple lumen catheters.癌症化疗中中心静脉通路的新选择。多腔导管。
Am Surg. 1986 Feb;52(2):105-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Factors influencing the optimal selection of central venous access devices: A qualitative study of health care team members' perspectives.影响中心静脉通路装置最佳选择的因素:对医疗团队成员观点的定性研究
Int J Nurs Sci. 2022 Sep 16;9(4):445-452. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2022.09.006. eCollection 2022 Oct.
2
Inherent and modifiable risk factors for peripheral venous catheter failure during cancer treatment: a prospective cohort study.癌症治疗期间外周静脉导管失败的固有和可修改风险因素:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Mar;29(3):1487-1496. doi: 10.1007/s00520-020-05643-2. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
3
Progress in central venous access?
中心静脉通路的进展?
Support Care Cancer. 2003 Mar;11(3):135-6. doi: 10.1007/s00520-002-0430-8. Epub 2003 Jan 28.