Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2024
Catheter-related thrombosis in adults with cancer: a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hapgood Greg, Hill Kate, Okano Satomi, Abro Emad, Looke David, Kennedy Glen, Pavilion Gilbert, Van Kuilenburg Rosita, Geary Alanna, Joubert Warren, Eastgate Melissa, Jones Mark, Mollee Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is a complication of central venous access devices (CVADs). Evidence is variable regarding the significance of the side of catheter insertion. The role of the patient's hand dominance in predisposition to CRT remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES: In a prospective randomized controlled trial, adult cancer patients were randomly allocated to either dominant or nondominant side CVAD insertion. The primary endpoint of this trial examined the incidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of the incidence of CRT.
METHODS: Six hundred forty CVADs were randomized to the dominant (n = 322) or nondominant (n = 318) side of insertion. Only symptomatic patients underwent ultrasound imaging to evaluate for CRT.
RESULTS: The median patient age was 58 years, 60% of patients had hematologic malignancies and 40% had solid tumors. CVADs used were peripherally-inserted central catheter line (67%), tunneled CVAD (23%), or nontunneled CVAD (10%). The CRT incidence rate was 0.65 versus 0.82 per 1000 line days in the dominant versus nondominant group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% CI, 0.58-2.48; P = .63). There was no significant difference in CRT incidence rate between left- and right-sided insertions (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.30-1.32; P = .22). The CRT incidence rate was lower in right-handed versus left-handed line inserters (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.71; P = .007).
CONCLUSION: The rate of CRT was not associated with whether CVAD insertion was on the patient's dominant or nondominant side or the side of insertion. The role of inserter hand dominance requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVES: In a prospective randomized controlled trial, adult cancer patients were randomly allocated to either dominant or nondominant side CVAD insertion. The primary endpoint of this trial examined the incidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of the incidence of CRT.
METHODS: Six hundred forty CVADs were randomized to the dominant (n = 322) or nondominant (n = 318) side of insertion. Only symptomatic patients underwent ultrasound imaging to evaluate for CRT.
RESULTS: The median patient age was 58 years, 60% of patients had hematologic malignancies and 40% had solid tumors. CVADs used were peripherally-inserted central catheter line (67%), tunneled CVAD (23%), or nontunneled CVAD (10%). The CRT incidence rate was 0.65 versus 0.82 per 1000 line days in the dominant versus nondominant group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; 95% CI, 0.58-2.48; P = .63). There was no significant difference in CRT incidence rate between left- and right-sided insertions (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.30-1.32; P = .22). The CRT incidence rate was lower in right-handed versus left-handed line inserters (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.71; P = .007).
CONCLUSION: The rate of CRT was not associated with whether CVAD insertion was on the patient's dominant or nondominant side or the side of insertion. The role of inserter hand dominance requires further investigation.