Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2006
Efficacy and safety results with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system versus the Tesio-Cath hemodialysis catheter at 12 months.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное 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.
Rosenblatt Melvin, Caridi James G, Hakki Faris Z, Jackson Jerry, Kapoian Toros, Martin Samuel P, Moran John, Pedan Alexander, Reese Woody J, Ross John P, Ross Jamie, Rushton Fred, Schwab Steven J, Soundararajan Ramesh, Stainken Brian, Weiss Mark A, Work Jack, Yegge James
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the performance and safety of a fully subcutaneous vascular access device, the LifeSite hemodialysis access system, versus a tunneled hemodialysis catheter, the Tesio-Cath, at 1 year after implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients who required hemodialysis received implantation of the LifeSite device or a Tesio-Cath device as a part of this multicenter study. Thirty-four patients were treated in each group. The endpoints observed included blood flow rates and associated venous pressures, overall and device-related adverse events, the need for thrombolytic infusions, device-related infections (DRIs) and associated hospitalizations, and technical device survival.
RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, significantly higher venous pressures were required in patients with the Tesio-Cath to achieve blood flow rates comparable with those achieved with the LifeSite device. Patients in the LifeSite group experienced a significantly lower rate of non-device-related adverse events (P < .001), device-related adverse events (P < .016), need for thrombolytic infusions (P < .002), and DRIs (P < .013) compared with patients in the Tesio-Cath group. There was a trend toward a lower number of hospital days per month for DRIs in the LifeSite group, with the rate for the Tesio-Cath group being twice that in the LifeSite group. The use of the LifeSite device was also associated with a significantly higher probability of device survival for 12 months after censoring for planned removals (P < .031).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate superior device performance and technical device survival, reduced complications, and the need for fewer interventions with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system compared with a standard hemodialysis catheter during a 1-year time period after implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients who required hemodialysis received implantation of the LifeSite device or a Tesio-Cath device as a part of this multicenter study. Thirty-four patients were treated in each group. The endpoints observed included blood flow rates and associated venous pressures, overall and device-related adverse events, the need for thrombolytic infusions, device-related infections (DRIs) and associated hospitalizations, and technical device survival.
RESULTS: During the 12-month observation period, significantly higher venous pressures were required in patients with the Tesio-Cath to achieve blood flow rates comparable with those achieved with the LifeSite device. Patients in the LifeSite group experienced a significantly lower rate of non-device-related adverse events (P < .001), device-related adverse events (P < .016), need for thrombolytic infusions (P < .002), and DRIs (P < .013) compared with patients in the Tesio-Cath group. There was a trend toward a lower number of hospital days per month for DRIs in the LifeSite group, with the rate for the Tesio-Cath group being twice that in the LifeSite group. The use of the LifeSite device was also associated with a significantly higher probability of device survival for 12 months after censoring for planned removals (P < .031).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate superior device performance and technical device survival, reduced complications, and the need for fewer interventions with the LifeSite hemodialysis access system compared with a standard hemodialysis catheter during a 1-year time period after implantation.