适当的使用标准
医学
分级(工程)
多学科方法
医疗急救
静脉通路
重症监护医学
梅德林
指南
医学物理学
医学文献
外科
病理
内科学
导管
政治学
法学
土木工程
社会学
工程类
社会科学
作者
Alan Massouh,Sharon W. Kwan,Nicholas Fidelman,Mikhail Higgins,Hani H. Abujudeh,Resmi A. Charalel,Marcelo Guimarães,Amit Gupta,Alexander Lam,Bill S. Majdalany,Parag J. Patel,Kevin S. Stadtlander,Terri Stillwell,Elrond Y.L. Teo,Ricky T. Tong,Baljendra Kapoor
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.02.021
摘要
The use of central venous access devices is ubiquitous in both inpatient and outpatient settings, whether for critical care, oncology, hemodialysis, parenteral nutrition, or diagnostic purposes. Radiology has a well-established role in the placement of these devices due to demonstrated benefits of radiologic placement in multiple clinical settings. A wide variety of devices are available for central venous access and optimal device selection is a common clinical challenge. Central venous access devices may be nontunneled, tunneled, or implantable. They may be centrally or peripherally inserted by way of veins in the neck, extremities, or elsewhere. Each device and access site presents specific risks that should be considered in each clinical scenario to minimize the risk of harm. The risk of infection and mechanical injury should be minimized in all patients. In hemodialysis patients, preservation of future access is an additional important consideration. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI