RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The safety profile of venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a relevant issue and considerable differences in safety and efficacy of VIT have been reported. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers during VIT, which has already been published. For a second analysis, data concerning premedication and venom preparations in relation to systemic adverse events (AE) during the up-dosing phase and the first year of the maintenance phase were evaluated as well as the outcome of field stings and sting challenges. METHODS: The study was conducted as an open, prospective, observational, multicenter study. In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. RESULTS: Premedication with oral antihistamines was taken by 52.1% of patients during the up-dosing and 19.7% of patients during the maintenance phase. Taking antihistamines had no effect on the frequency of systemic AE (p=0.11) but large local reactions (LLR) were less frequently seen (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96; p=0.02). Aqueous preparations were preferentially used for up-dosing (73.0%) and depot preparations for the maintenance phase (64.5%). The type of venom preparation neither had an influence on the frequency of systemic AE nor on the effectiveness of VIT (p=0.26 and p=0.80, respectively), while LLR were less frequently seen when depot preparations were used (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with oral antihistamines during VIT significantly reduces the frequency of LLR but not systemic AE. All venom preparations used were equally effective and did not differ in the frequency of systemic AE.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Long-term therapy of haematology patients has been facilitated by permanent indwelling central venous catheters. We performed a retrospective study to compare the problems occurring with a externalized catheter (Hickman) versus a totally implanted port catheter. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 171 catheters were placed to 139 haematological patients, 77 patients with Hickman catheters and 94 with totally implanted port catheters. We review our experience in order to identify factors associated with complications. RESULTS: Pneumothorax occurred in one of 171 of the percutaneously placed devices. Other early complications were hematoma 13, and catheter migration out of the vascular tree 8. Late complications included malposition (5.8%), thrombosis (2.9%), septic thrombosis (1.7%) and most notably infection (38.5%). 62 of 77 patients with Hickman catheters developed catheter-related infection (hazard rate infection 7.1/1000 days) compared with 53 of 94 patients with implanted port catheters (hazard rate infection 1.5/1000 days, p < 0.001). Most of infections that occurred were caused by gram-positive organisms but the gram-negative organisms infections resulted in a significantly higher rate of treatment failure and recurrence. A total of 72 catheters were removed of the central line: 36 for infection. CONCLUSION: We found a significantly increased incidence of catheter-related infection in patients with Hickman catheters. We also observed that the use of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis prior to catheter insertion did not appear to be beneficial and thrombocytopenia at this moment was a factor in the development of hematoma. The infections due to coagulase-positive staphylococci can be treated successfully without removal of the catheters. However in catheter-related bacteremia due gram-negative organisms there is a chance that the bacteremia will recur if the catheter is not removed.