Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rat...Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.展开更多
Purpose: Research on clinical application effect of combining very low birth weight newborn (VLBWN) umbilical vein catheterization (UVC) with peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Method: 60 cases of VLBWN ch...Purpose: Research on clinical application effect of combining very low birth weight newborn (VLBWN) umbilical vein catheterization (UVC) with peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Method: 60 cases of VLBWN checked in our hospital’s ICU are selected and divided into combination group (n = 30) and PICC group (n = 30) according to the random number table. Combination of UVC and PICC is applied on newborn of combination group while only PICC is applied on newborn of PICC group. These two groups’ newborn’s PICC catheterization operation time, PICC indwelling time, weight gain, hospital stays, hospital infection, planned extubation, successful single puncture, adverse events and other indexes are observed. Result: Newborns in combination group have less PICC catheterization operation time and less hospital stays than newborns in PICC group while newborns in combination group have longer PICC indwelling time and greater weight gain than newborns in PICC group. The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Combination group’s hospital infection ratio (3.33%) is lower than that of PICC group (23.33%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Newborns in combination group have a planned extubation rate of 93.33% and a successful single puncture rate of 93.33%, which are greater than those of newborn in PICC group (respectively 73.33% and 70.00%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Newborns in combination group have an adverse event occurrence rate of 43.33%, lower than that of PICC group (70.00%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Application of combination of UVC and PICC on VLBWN can greatly improve PICC catheterization efficiency and newborn patients’ nutriture and reduce rate of complications, thus, it is worthy of clinical application.展开更多
OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient s...OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.展开更多
BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it ...BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it might preclude them from undergoing further life-sustaining palliative surgery.AIM To describe complications associated with the use of upper extremity percutaneous intravenous central catheters(PICCs)in children with single ventricle physiology.METHODS A single institution retrospective review of univentricular patients who underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses as their stage 2 palliation procedure from January 2014 until December 2018 and had upper body PICCs placed at any point prior to this procedure.Clinical data including ultrasonography,cardiac catheterization,echocardiogram reports and patient notes were used to determine the presence of thrombus or stenosis of the upper extremity and cervical vessels.Data regarding the presence and duration of upper extremity PICCs and upper extremity central venous catheter(CVC),and use of anticoagulation were recorded.RESULTS Seventy-six patients underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,of which 56(73%)had an upper extremity PICC at some point prior to this procedure.Median duration of PICC usage was 24 d(25%,75%:12,39).Seventeen patients(30%)with PICCs also had internal jugular or subclavian central venous catheters(CVCs)in place at some point prior to their superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,median duration 10 d(25%,75%:8,14).Thrombus was detected in association with 2 of the 56 PICCs(4%)and 3 of the 17 CVCs(18%).All five patients were placed on therapeutic dose of low molecular weight heparin at the time of thrombus detection and subsequent cardiac catheterization demonstrated resolution in three of the five patients.No patients developed clinically significant venous stenosis.CONCLUSION Use of upper extremity PICCs in patients with single ventricle physiology prior to super cavopulmonary anastomosis is associated with a low rate of catheterassociated thrombosis.展开更多
目的探讨末端瓣膜耐高压注射型经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(application of power peripherally inserted central catheter solo,Power PICC Solo)与经锁骨下中心静脉置管(central venous catheter,CVC)在造血干细胞移植患者中的应用...目的探讨末端瓣膜耐高压注射型经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(application of power peripherally inserted central catheter solo,Power PICC Solo)与经锁骨下中心静脉置管(central venous catheter,CVC)在造血干细胞移植患者中的应用。方法选取2021年9月—2023年6月厦门大学附属第一医院收治的100例造血干细胞移植患者。根据患者置管方法分为外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)组(n=58)和CVC组(n=42),PICC组采用Power PICC Solo,CVC组采用CVC。比较2组患者的置管成功情况、操作时间、导管置留时间、置管费用、置管后舒适度、患者液体流速、并发症发生率、患者满意度。结果PICC组置管成功率优于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组操作时间短于CVC组,导管置留时间长于CVC组,置管费用高于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组患者舒适度优于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在置管后第1、10、20、30天,PICC组患者液体流速均低于CVC组,且2组患者置管后第30天流速均低于置管后第1天,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组患者血栓性静脉炎发生率高于CVC组,导管感染发生率低于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),2组患者血气胸、导管异位、导管脱落等发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PICC组操作技术满意度评分为(17.24±2.17)分,高于CVC组的(14.07±2.68)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与CVC比较,Power PICC Solo能够提高造血干细胞移植患者一次置管成功率,降低置管操作时间,延长导管置留时间,提高患者置管后舒适度,但置管费用较高,且血栓性静脉炎发生率高。展开更多
目的探讨改良经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheters,PICC)长度体外预测量方法的效果。方法选择2008年1月至2009年9月某院需行PICC的患者120例,按随机数字表将其分为对照组和观察组,每组各60例。观察组...目的探讨改良经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheters,PICC)长度体外预测量方法的效果。方法选择2008年1月至2009年9月某院需行PICC的患者120例,按随机数字表将其分为对照组和观察组,每组各60例。观察组患者采用改良的体外测量法,即患者平卧位,外展手臂45°,采用从穿刺点至肩峰再由肩峰至右侧锁骨头的体外测量法。对照组患者采用常规体外测量法,即患者平卧位,外展手臂90°,采用从穿刺点至右胸锁关节再向下反折至第三肋间的体外测量法。比较两种体外测量方法的偏差率及不同测量方法对PICC置管位置的影响。结果应用改良法测量的偏差次数较少,观察组的偏差率明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(21.7%vs41.7%,χ2=5.55,P<0.05)。观察组患者PICC导管末端位置的准确率(95%)高于对照组(70%),差异有统计学意义(χ2=12.99,P<0.05)。结论改良的PICC体外测量方法可降低PICC置管体外预测量的客观和主观误差,有效提高PICC管置入上腔静脉的准确率,提高置管的准确性及安全性。展开更多
文摘Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.
文摘Purpose: Research on clinical application effect of combining very low birth weight newborn (VLBWN) umbilical vein catheterization (UVC) with peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Method: 60 cases of VLBWN checked in our hospital’s ICU are selected and divided into combination group (n = 30) and PICC group (n = 30) according to the random number table. Combination of UVC and PICC is applied on newborn of combination group while only PICC is applied on newborn of PICC group. These two groups’ newborn’s PICC catheterization operation time, PICC indwelling time, weight gain, hospital stays, hospital infection, planned extubation, successful single puncture, adverse events and other indexes are observed. Result: Newborns in combination group have less PICC catheterization operation time and less hospital stays than newborns in PICC group while newborns in combination group have longer PICC indwelling time and greater weight gain than newborns in PICC group. The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Combination group’s hospital infection ratio (3.33%) is lower than that of PICC group (23.33%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Newborns in combination group have a planned extubation rate of 93.33% and a successful single puncture rate of 93.33%, which are greater than those of newborn in PICC group (respectively 73.33% and 70.00%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Newborns in combination group have an adverse event occurrence rate of 43.33%, lower than that of PICC group (70.00%). The difference here has statistical significance (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Application of combination of UVC and PICC on VLBWN can greatly improve PICC catheterization efficiency and newborn patients’ nutriture and reduce rate of complications, thus, it is worthy of clinical application.
文摘OBJECTIVE: To calculate and compare the cost of Port and PICC's application in long-term intravenous administration, and to support the decision making of hospital manager. METHODS: Literature review and patient survey in 2 oncology centers in China were carried out to investigate the cost and impact of Port and PICC for patients. The cost at different time of intravenous administration was calculated and compared. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed and tornado graph was drawn. RESULTS: Direct cost of Port at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were7442, 8005, 8553, and 9131 CNY, and 4700, 9399, 14032, 18799 CNY for PICC respectively. Direct & indirect cost at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years were 9291, 11704, 14101, 16529 CNY for Port and 9697, 19393, 29023, 38787 CNY for PICC. Sensitivity analysis showed that productivity loss and device maintenance cost were the most in?uential factors to the result. CONCLUSION: Port had higher cost in short term and less in long term compared with PICC. Patients expected to get intravenous administration more than 0.5 year should use Port if both direct and indirect costs were included.
文摘BACKGROUND There is risk of stenosis and thrombosis of the superior vena cava after upper extremity central catheter replacement.This complication is more serious among patients with single ventricle physiology,as it might preclude them from undergoing further life-sustaining palliative surgery.AIM To describe complications associated with the use of upper extremity percutaneous intravenous central catheters(PICCs)in children with single ventricle physiology.METHODS A single institution retrospective review of univentricular patients who underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses as their stage 2 palliation procedure from January 2014 until December 2018 and had upper body PICCs placed at any point prior to this procedure.Clinical data including ultrasonography,cardiac catheterization,echocardiogram reports and patient notes were used to determine the presence of thrombus or stenosis of the upper extremity and cervical vessels.Data regarding the presence and duration of upper extremity PICCs and upper extremity central venous catheter(CVC),and use of anticoagulation were recorded.RESULTS Seventy-six patients underwent superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,of which 56(73%)had an upper extremity PICC at some point prior to this procedure.Median duration of PICC usage was 24 d(25%,75%:12,39).Seventeen patients(30%)with PICCs also had internal jugular or subclavian central venous catheters(CVCs)in place at some point prior to their superior cavopulmonary anastomoses,median duration 10 d(25%,75%:8,14).Thrombus was detected in association with 2 of the 56 PICCs(4%)and 3 of the 17 CVCs(18%).All five patients were placed on therapeutic dose of low molecular weight heparin at the time of thrombus detection and subsequent cardiac catheterization demonstrated resolution in three of the five patients.No patients developed clinically significant venous stenosis.CONCLUSION Use of upper extremity PICCs in patients with single ventricle physiology prior to super cavopulmonary anastomosis is associated with a low rate of catheterassociated thrombosis.
文摘目的探讨末端瓣膜耐高压注射型经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(application of power peripherally inserted central catheter solo,Power PICC Solo)与经锁骨下中心静脉置管(central venous catheter,CVC)在造血干细胞移植患者中的应用。方法选取2021年9月—2023年6月厦门大学附属第一医院收治的100例造血干细胞移植患者。根据患者置管方法分为外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)组(n=58)和CVC组(n=42),PICC组采用Power PICC Solo,CVC组采用CVC。比较2组患者的置管成功情况、操作时间、导管置留时间、置管费用、置管后舒适度、患者液体流速、并发症发生率、患者满意度。结果PICC组置管成功率优于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组操作时间短于CVC组,导管置留时间长于CVC组,置管费用高于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组患者舒适度优于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。在置管后第1、10、20、30天,PICC组患者液体流速均低于CVC组,且2组患者置管后第30天流速均低于置管后第1天,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PICC组患者血栓性静脉炎发生率高于CVC组,导管感染发生率低于CVC组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),2组患者血气胸、导管异位、导管脱落等发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。PICC组操作技术满意度评分为(17.24±2.17)分,高于CVC组的(14.07±2.68)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与CVC比较,Power PICC Solo能够提高造血干细胞移植患者一次置管成功率,降低置管操作时间,延长导管置留时间,提高患者置管后舒适度,但置管费用较高,且血栓性静脉炎发生率高。
文摘目的探讨改良经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheters,PICC)长度体外预测量方法的效果。方法选择2008年1月至2009年9月某院需行PICC的患者120例,按随机数字表将其分为对照组和观察组,每组各60例。观察组患者采用改良的体外测量法,即患者平卧位,外展手臂45°,采用从穿刺点至肩峰再由肩峰至右侧锁骨头的体外测量法。对照组患者采用常规体外测量法,即患者平卧位,外展手臂90°,采用从穿刺点至右胸锁关节再向下反折至第三肋间的体外测量法。比较两种体外测量方法的偏差率及不同测量方法对PICC置管位置的影响。结果应用改良法测量的偏差次数较少,观察组的偏差率明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(21.7%vs41.7%,χ2=5.55,P<0.05)。观察组患者PICC导管末端位置的准确率(95%)高于对照组(70%),差异有统计学意义(χ2=12.99,P<0.05)。结论改良的PICC体外测量方法可降低PICC置管体外预测量的客观和主观误差,有效提高PICC管置入上腔静脉的准确率,提高置管的准确性及安全性。
