• Treffer 1 von 1
Zurück zur Trefferliste

Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm

  • Purpose: We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results: A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (logPurpose: We aimed to analyse short and long-term complications of polyurethane (PU) versus silicone catheters used in totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) implanted at the forearm. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 698 consecutively implanted TIVAPs was performed. Primary end-points were defined as rates of major complications associated with either type of central venous port catheter. Technical success rate, device service interval as well as minor complications not requiring port explantation were defined as secondary end-points. Results: A total of 698 port devices were implanted in 681 patients, 396 equipped with a PU catheter, 302 with a silicone catheter. The technical success rate was 99.9% with no major periprocedural complications. During follow-up a total of 211 complications in 146 patients were observed (1.0/1000 catheter days), 183 occurred associated with PU catheters (1.8/100 catheter days), 28 (0.3/1000 catheter days) with silicone catheters (log rank test p < 0.0001). Catheter-related bloodstream infections as well as thrombotic complications occurred significantly more frequently with PU catheters, while silicone catheters exhibited a trend towards a higher rate of mechanical failure such as disconnection or catheter rupture. Major complications requiring explantation of the device occurred more frequently with PU-based catheters (10.6%) compared to silicone catheter carrying ports (4.6%, log rank test p < 0.001).zeige mehrzeige weniger

Volltext Dateien herunterladen

  • Polyurethane versus silicone catheters for central venous port devices implanted at the forearm.pdf
    eng

Metadaten exportieren

Weitere Dienste

Teilen auf Twitter Suche bei Google Scholar Anzahl der Zugriffe auf dieses Dokument
Metadaten
Autor*innen:M. Wildgruber, C. Lueg, S. Borgmeyer, I. Karimov, Ulrike BraunORCiD, M. Kiechle, R. Meier, M. Koehler, J. Ettl, H. Berger
Dokumenttyp:Zeitschriftenartikel
Veröffentlichungsform:Verlagsliteratur
Sprache:Englisch
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes (Englisch):European Journal of Cancer
Jahr der Erstveröffentlichung:2016
Verlag:Elsevier Ltd.
Verlagsort:Oxford, UK
Jahrgang/Band:59
Erste Seite:113
Letzte Seite:124
DDC-Klassifikation:Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / Ingenieurwissenschaften / Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Freie Schlagwörter:Central venous access port; Chemotherapy; Complication; Infection; Thrombosis
DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.02.011
ISSN:0959-8049
Verfügbarkeit des Dokuments:Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")
Datum der Freischaltung:31.05.2016
Referierte Publikation:Ja
Datum der Eintragung als referierte Publikation:31.05.2016
Einverstanden
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.