{"title":"全植入式静脉通路装置:对一家采用多种技术方法的医院的发病率和风险因素的回顾性分析","authors":"Diogo Melo-Pinto , Tatiana Moreira-Marques , Emanuel Guerreiro , Marina Morais","doi":"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Totally implantable venous central access devices (TIVADs) can be implanted by open surgery or by direct puncture in the subclavian (ScV), internal jugular (IJV) or cephalic (CephV) veins.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective study was conducted in 201 patients. Thirty-day follow-up data was analyzed to compare the outcomes of different techniques and evaluation of risk factors.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Complications were reported in 3.8 % of the patients with no overall differences between different vascular accesses. Direct puncture was associated with more accidental arterial punction (<em>p</em> = 0.01). History of previous catheters was a risk factor for immediate complications (<em>p</em> = 0.01) and patients with history of thoracic disease had more early and late complications (<em>p</em> = 0.03 and <em>p</em> = 0.04, respectively). Late complications were more common in patients over 60 years old (<em>p</em> = 0.04) and with chronic pain (<em>p</em> = 0.03).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was no difference in overall complication rates between the implantation techniques. Further prospective randomized controlled trials would clarify the most effective technique.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74890,"journal":{"name":"Surgery in practice and science","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000044/pdfft?md5=4a2c892ebed4924920e701b37020f8a4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666262024000044-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Totally implantable venous access devices: A restrospective analysis of morbidity and risk factors in a hospital with multi-technique approaches\",\"authors\":\"Diogo Melo-Pinto , Tatiana Moreira-Marques , Emanuel Guerreiro , Marina Morais\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sipas.2024.100237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Totally implantable venous central access devices (TIVADs) can be implanted by open surgery or by direct puncture in the subclavian (ScV), internal jugular (IJV) or cephalic (CephV) veins.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective study was conducted in 201 patients. Thirty-day follow-up data was analyzed to compare the outcomes of different techniques and evaluation of risk factors.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Complications were reported in 3.8 % of the patients with no overall differences between different vascular accesses. Direct puncture was associated with more accidental arterial punction (<em>p</em> = 0.01). History of previous catheters was a risk factor for immediate complications (<em>p</em> = 0.01) and patients with history of thoracic disease had more early and late complications (<em>p</em> = 0.03 and <em>p</em> = 0.04, respectively). Late complications were more common in patients over 60 years old (<em>p</em> = 0.04) and with chronic pain (<em>p</em> = 0.03).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There was no difference in overall complication rates between the implantation techniques. Further prospective randomized controlled trials would clarify the most effective technique.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000044/pdfft?md5=4a2c892ebed4924920e701b37020f8a4&pid=1-s2.0-S2666262024000044-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery in practice and science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery in practice and science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262024000044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景可通过开放手术或直接穿刺锁骨下静脉(ScV)、颈内静脉(IJV)或头静脉(CephV)植入全植入式中央静脉通路装置(TIVAD)。结果3.8%的患者出现并发症,不同血管通路之间总体上没有差异。直接穿刺与更多的意外动脉穿刺有关(p = 0.01)。曾使用过导管是导致即刻并发症的一个风险因素(p = 0.01),而有胸腔疾病史的患者有更多的早期和晚期并发症(分别为 p = 0.03 和 p = 0.04)。结论两种植入技术的总体并发症发生率没有差异。进一步的前瞻性随机对照试验将明确最有效的技术。
Totally implantable venous access devices: A restrospective analysis of morbidity and risk factors in a hospital with multi-technique approaches
Background
Totally implantable venous central access devices (TIVADs) can be implanted by open surgery or by direct puncture in the subclavian (ScV), internal jugular (IJV) or cephalic (CephV) veins.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted in 201 patients. Thirty-day follow-up data was analyzed to compare the outcomes of different techniques and evaluation of risk factors.
Results
Complications were reported in 3.8 % of the patients with no overall differences between different vascular accesses. Direct puncture was associated with more accidental arterial punction (p = 0.01). History of previous catheters was a risk factor for immediate complications (p = 0.01) and patients with history of thoracic disease had more early and late complications (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). Late complications were more common in patients over 60 years old (p = 0.04) and with chronic pain (p = 0.03).
Conclusion
There was no difference in overall complication rates between the implantation techniques. Further prospective randomized controlled trials would clarify the most effective technique.