Expert review of medical devices · 2024
Complications after peripherally inserted central catheter versus central venous catheter implantation in intensive care unit: propensity score analysis using a nationwide database.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Takahashi Toshiaki, Morita Kojiro, Uda Kazuaki, Matsui Hiroki, Yasunaga Hideo, Nakagami Gojiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are superior to central venous catheters (CVCs); therefore, we compared post-implantation complications between CVC and PICC groups.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who received CVCs or PICCs between April 2010 and March 2018 were identified from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan. The outcomes of interest included catheter infection, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and phlebitis. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance patient backgrounds. Outcomes were compared using logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 164,185 eligible patients, including 161,605 (98.4%) and 2,580 (1.6%) in the CVC and PICC groups, respectively. The PICC group was more likely to have overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.19), pulmonary embolism (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.38-3.89), deep vein thrombosis (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99), and phlebitis (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.32) than the CVC group. There was no significant intergroup difference in catheter infection (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.39-3.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PICCs had a significantly greater incidence of complications than did those with CVCs. Further research is necessary to explore the factors contributing to these complications.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who received CVCs or PICCs between April 2010 and March 2018 were identified from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan. The outcomes of interest included catheter infection, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and phlebitis. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to balance patient backgrounds. Outcomes were compared using logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 164,185 eligible patients, including 161,605 (98.4%) and 2,580 (1.6%) in the CVC and PICC groups, respectively. The PICC group was more likely to have overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.19), pulmonary embolism (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.38-3.89), deep vein thrombosis (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99), and phlebitis (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.32) than the CVC group. There was no significant intergroup difference in catheter infection (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.39-3.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PICCs had a significantly greater incidence of complications than did those with CVCs. Further research is necessary to explore the factors contributing to these complications.