打开APP
userphoto
未登录

开通VIP,畅享免费电子书等14项超值服

开通VIP
Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection in patie

Abstract

Background

Central venous access (CVA), in which a large bore catheter is routed through a vein in the neck, upper chest or femoral area, is needed to give drugs that cannot be given by mouth or via a conventional cannula in the arm.

Objectives

To establish whether either the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes result in a lower incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infection related to CVA devices.

To determine whether the circumference of a long-term central venous access device influences the incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infection related to CVA devices.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE (from inception to December 2006), reference lists of identified trials, and bibliographies of published reviews. We also contacted researchers in the field. There were no language restrictions.

Selection criteria

We included randomized controlled trials comparing central venous catheter insertion routes.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors assessed potentially relevant studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Relevant outcomes were: venous thrombosis, venous stenosis, infection related to CVA devices, mechanical complications (e.g misplaced catheter, minor bleeding, haematoma).

Main results

We considered 83 studies for inclusion in the review. Six studies appeared eligible but five were subsequently excluded because they did not randomize participants for either site of access or catheter circumference size. One study was a high quality block randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment was good and randomization was by a central computer. In all, 293 patients were randomized to a femoral or a subclavian CVA group. Results from this one trial were as follows

1. Catheter-related infectious complications Infectious complication (colonization with or without sepsis: the relative risk (RR) was 4.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to 10.71) favouring subclavian over femoral access.
Major infectious complications (sepsis with or without bacteremia): the RR was 3.04 (95% CI 0.63 to 14.82) favouring subclavian access.
Colonized catheter (greater than 103 colony-forming units/mL of gram positive microorganisms): the RR was 3.65 (95%CI 1.40 to 9.56) favouring subclavian access.
Colonized catheter (greater than 103 colony-forming units/mL of gram negative microorganisms): the RR was 5.41 (95% CI 1.61 to 18.15) favouring subclavian access.

2. Catheter-related mechanical complications
Overall complications (arterial puncture, minor bleeding, haematoma, misplaced catheter): the RR was 0.92 (95% 0.56 to 1.51) favouring subclavian access.

3. Catheter-related thrombotic complications
Catheter-related thromboses (fibrin sleeves, major and complete thrombosis): the RR was 11.53 (95% CI 2.80, to 47.52) favouring subclavian access.

Authors' conclusions

Subclavian CVA is preferable to femoral CVA. Further trials of subclavian versus femoral or jugular CVA are needed. Research on the impact of catheter circumference on catheter-related complications is required.

本站仅提供存储服务,所有内容均由用户发布,如发现有害或侵权内容,请点击举报
打开APP,阅读全文并永久保存 查看更多类似文章
猜你喜欢
类似文章
【热】打开小程序,算一算2024你的财运
NEJM:颈、股、锁骨下静脉穿刺操作视频
PICC导管相关性血栓,如何治疗与预防?
导管继发血栓,你只知道拔拔拔吗?| 协和八
血栓:中心静脉导管内形成血栓,肿么办
夺走肝癌患者生命并不总是癌细胞,小心这个「隐秘杀手」
PE
更多类似文章 >>
生活服务
热点新闻
分享 收藏 导长图 关注 下载文章
绑定账号成功
后续可登录账号畅享VIP特权!
如果VIP功能使用有故障,
可点击这里联系客服!

联系客服