医学
导管
外周穿刺中心静脉导管
队列
血栓形成
外科
倾向得分匹配
队列研究
置信区间
中心静脉导管
深静脉
三级转诊医院
回顾性队列研究
内科学
作者
Craig McManus,Nicholas Mifflin,Renz Rivera,Sarah Vause,Ton Tran,Matthew D. Ostroff,Lorenza Harrowell,Steven A. Frost,Evan Alexandrou
出处
期刊:BMJ Open
[BMJ]
日期:2024-05-01
卷期号:14 (5): e081749-e081749
标识
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081749
摘要
Objectives To compare catheter-related outcomes of individuals who received a tunnelled femorally inserted central catheter (tFICC) with those who received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the upper extremities. Design A propensity-score matched cohort study. Setting A 980-bed tertiary referral hospital in South West Sydney, Australia. Participants In-patients referred to the hospital central venous access service for the insertion of a central venous access device. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of all-cause catheter failure. Secondary outcomes included the rates of catheters removed because of suspected or confirmed catheter-associated infection, catheter dwell and confirmed upper or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Results The overall rate of all-cause catheter failure in the matched tFICC and PICC cohort was 2.4/1000 catheter days (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4) and 3.0/1000 catheter days (95% CI 2.3 to 3.9), respectively, and when compared, no difference was observed (difference −0.63/1000 catheter days, 95% CI −2.32 to 1.06). We found no differences in catheter dwell (mean difference of 14.2 days, 95% CI −6.6 to 35.0, p=0.910); or in the cumulative probability of failure between the two groups within the first month of dwell (p=0.358). No significant differences were observed in the rate of catheters requiring removal for confirmed central line-associated bloodstream infection (difference 0.13/1000 catheter day, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.63, p=0.896). Similarly, no significant differences were found between the groups for confirmed catheter-related DVT (difference −0.11 per 1000 catheter days, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.04, p=1.00). Conclusion There were no differences in catheter-related outcomes between the matched cohort of tFICC and PICC patients, suggesting that tFICCs are a possible alternative for vascular access when the veins of the upper extremities or thoracic region are not viable for catheterisation.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI