Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Oncologist ; 24(9): e953-e959, 2019 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30755503

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco-hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC-related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC-related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model. RESULTS: Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC-related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC-days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24-2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81). CONCLUSION: Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all-AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.


Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Catéteres Venosos Centrales/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Hematológicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Trombosis/patología , Anciano , Quimioterapia , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/patología , Femenino , Neoplasias Hematológicas/complicaciones , Neoplasias Hematológicas/epidemiología , Neoplasias Hematológicas/patología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Trombosis/epidemiología , Trombosis/etiología
2.
Res Nurs Health ; 42(3): 198-204, 2019 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30912181

RESUMEN

The type of central vascular access device providers chosen for providing parenteral supportive treatments has evolved over the past years, going from routinely used centrally inserted catheters to a more recent trend of peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICCs) when expected treatment duration is less than 6 months. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the safety of PICCs in administering parenteral supportive treatments. All adult inpatients and outpatients who had a PICC inserted for the administration of parenteral supportive treatments (i.e., parenteral nutrition, intravenous fluids, blood products, or antibiotics) between September 2007 and December 2014 in four public Italian hospitals were included. The primary outcome was PICC removal because of an adverse event (AE, defined as occlusion, exit-site infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Among the 1,250 included patients, 178 PICC-related removals because of AEs (14.2%; 1.62 AEs per 1,000 PICC days) were reported. Rates of PICC removal because of occlusion, exit-site infection, and symptomatic thrombosis were 1.08, 0.32, and 0.23 per 1,000 PICC days, respectively. The median dwell-time between PICC insertion and its removal because of an AE was 67 days (interquartile range 28-180 days). Risk of PICC removal due to AE was higher with open-system PICCs [hazard ratio = 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.52-4.96]. In this study, we found preliminary evidence that PICCs can be safely used to administer parenteral supportive treatments lasting up to 6 months. PICCs may be a relevant alternative to centrally inserted catheters for medium-term parenteral supportive treatments.


Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Venoso Central/estadística & datos numéricos , Nutrición Parenteral Total/estadística & datos numéricos , Seguridad del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Anciano , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Cateterismo Venoso Central/efectos adversos , Cateterismo Periférico/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nutrición Parenteral Total/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 39(7): 875-877, 2018 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29655373

RESUMEN

Midline catheters (MCs) may be useful to avoid repeated venipuncture in patients requiring prolonged intravenous infusions with limited adverse events (AEs). We analyzed 2 Italian hospital databases to ascertain the safety of MCs. Among 1,538 adult patients, 154 MC-related AEs (10%; 2.49 AEs per 1,000 MC days) were reported.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;875-877.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Cateterismo Periférico/efectos adversos , Catéteres de Permanencia/efectos adversos , Administración Intravenosa , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Hospitales , Humanos , Italia/epidemiología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA