Surgery today · 2013
A single-center study of vascular access sites for intravenous ports.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Ching-Feng, Ko Po-Jen, Wu Ching-Yang, Liu Yun-Hen, Kao Tsung-Chi, Yu Sheng-Yueh, Li Hao-Jui, Hsieh Hung-Chang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the use of intravenous ports and provides a guide related to clinical decision making.
METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 1505 patients who had received intravenous ports at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2006. The relationships between the complications and entry routes were assessed. The intervention-free periods were also determined and compared. The patients were followed up until June 2010.
RESULTS: Of the 1543 procedures performed, 412 were reinterventions to treat complications, most of which corresponded to fewer than 0.1 episodes per 1000 catheter-days; these were not associated with any particular entry route. There was a higher catheter fracture rate when the right subclavian vein was chosen as the entry vessel (p < 0.05). The intervention-free period ranged from 207 to 533 days.
CONCLUSION: The subclavian vein is not recommended for the use of intravenous ports. There is not only a higher risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax or hemothorax using this entry route but also a higher fracture rate, which may be caused by pinch-off syndrome. The greater saphenous vein should only be considered when the patient has superior vena cava syndrome. However, a higher incidence of infection and a lower device survival rate should be expected with this location.
METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 1505 patients who had received intravenous ports at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in 2006. The relationships between the complications and entry routes were assessed. The intervention-free periods were also determined and compared. The patients were followed up until June 2010.
RESULTS: Of the 1543 procedures performed, 412 were reinterventions to treat complications, most of which corresponded to fewer than 0.1 episodes per 1000 catheter-days; these were not associated with any particular entry route. There was a higher catheter fracture rate when the right subclavian vein was chosen as the entry vessel (p < 0.05). The intervention-free period ranged from 207 to 533 days.
CONCLUSION: The subclavian vein is not recommended for the use of intravenous ports. There is not only a higher risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax or hemothorax using this entry route but also a higher fracture rate, which may be caused by pinch-off syndrome. The greater saphenous vein should only be considered when the patient has superior vena cava syndrome. However, a higher incidence of infection and a lower device survival rate should be expected with this location.