改良的两阶段鞘扩张器技术用于ICU患者周围插入中心导管的出血结局:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Ting-Chia Young, Kuang-Hua Cheng, Ying-Hung Tang, Tzu-Chun Wang, Kuan-Pen Yu
{"title":"改良的两阶段鞘扩张器技术用于ICU患者周围插入中心导管的出血结局:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Ting-Chia Young, Kuang-Hua Cheng, Ying-Hung Tang, Tzu-Chun Wang, Kuan-Pen Yu","doi":"10.1177/11297298251376981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical complications remain common with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), particularly in critically ill patients. Given the need to minimise procedural complications, strategies for reducing bleeding during PICC placement are essential. This study evaluated the efficacy of a previously introduced two-stage technique in minimising insertion-related bleeding compared with the traditional modified Seldinger technique in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 86 patients who underwent 92 PICC placements in the ICU of a tertiary university medical centre, between August 2022 and January 2025. Bleeding outcomes were assessed at three time points: 5 min, 30 min and within 24 h after insertion. Blood loss was evaluated semi-quantitatively based on the extent of gauze pad contamination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 56 were performed using the two-stage technique and 36 using the traditional method. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Bleeding incidence was significantly lower in the two-stage group at all time points. At 5 min post-insertion, 93% of the patients in the two-stage group had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared to 28% in the traditional group. At 30 min, 84% had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared with 14% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the two-stage technique was independently associated with a reduced bleeding risk (OR, 0.019; 95% CI, 0.005-0.074; <i>p</i> < 0.001). An interaction analysis showed that aPTT significantly modified the association between technique and bleeding (OR, 20.519; 95% CI, 1.643-255.851; <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified two-stage technique appears to be a feasible alternative to conventional PICC placement and was associated with reduced insertion-related bleeding in ICU patients. The technique also resulted in fewer dressing changes within 24 h, suggesting more stable haemostasis and potential improvements in ICU care quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":56113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Access","volume":" ","pages":"11297298251376981"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bleeding outcomes of a modified two-stage sheath-dilator technique for peripherally inserted central catheter placement in ICU patients: A retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Ting-Chia Young, Kuang-Hua Cheng, Ying-Hung Tang, Tzu-Chun Wang, Kuan-Pen Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11297298251376981\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical complications remain common with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), particularly in critically ill patients. Given the need to minimise procedural complications, strategies for reducing bleeding during PICC placement are essential. This study evaluated the efficacy of a previously introduced two-stage technique in minimising insertion-related bleeding compared with the traditional modified Seldinger technique in ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 86 patients who underwent 92 PICC placements in the ICU of a tertiary university medical centre, between August 2022 and January 2025. Bleeding outcomes were assessed at three time points: 5 min, 30 min and within 24 h after insertion. Blood loss was evaluated semi-quantitatively based on the extent of gauze pad contamination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 56 were performed using the two-stage technique and 36 using the traditional method. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Bleeding incidence was significantly lower in the two-stage group at all time points. At 5 min post-insertion, 93% of the patients in the two-stage group had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared to 28% in the traditional group. At 30 min, 84% had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared with 14% (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the two-stage technique was independently associated with a reduced bleeding risk (OR, 0.019; 95% CI, 0.005-0.074; <i>p</i> < 0.001). An interaction analysis showed that aPTT significantly modified the association between technique and bleeding (OR, 20.519; 95% CI, 1.643-255.851; <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified two-stage technique appears to be a feasible alternative to conventional PICC placement and was associated with reduced insertion-related bleeding in ICU patients. The technique also resulted in fewer dressing changes within 24 h, suggesting more stable haemostasis and potential improvements in ICU care quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"11297298251376981\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298251376981\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298251376981","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:机械并发症仍然是常见的置入外周中心导管(PICCs),特别是危重患者。考虑到需要尽量减少手术并发症,减少PICC置入期间出血的策略是必不可少的。本研究评估了先前引入的两阶段技术与传统改良Seldinger技术在减少ICU患者插入相关出血方面的疗效。方法:本研究纳入了2022年8月至2025年1月期间在某高等大学医学中心ICU接受92次PICC安置的86例患者。在插入后5分钟、30分钟和24小时三个时间点评估出血结果。根据纱布垫污染程度对出血量进行半定量评估。结果:两阶段法56例,传统方法36例。两组患者的基线特征具有可比性。两阶段组在各时间点的出血发生率均显著降低。在插入后5分钟,两阶段组中93%的患者没有明显出血或只有少量出血,而传统组为28%。在30分钟内,84%的患者没有明显出血或只有少量出血,而14%的患者没有出血(p pp)。结论:改进的两阶段技术似乎是传统PICC放置的可行替代方案,并且与减少ICU患者插入相关出血相关。该技术还减少了24小时内换药次数,表明更稳定的止血和潜在的ICU护理质量的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bleeding outcomes of a modified two-stage sheath-dilator technique for peripherally inserted central catheter placement in ICU patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: Mechanical complications remain common with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), particularly in critically ill patients. Given the need to minimise procedural complications, strategies for reducing bleeding during PICC placement are essential. This study evaluated the efficacy of a previously introduced two-stage technique in minimising insertion-related bleeding compared with the traditional modified Seldinger technique in ICU patients.

Methods: This study included 86 patients who underwent 92 PICC placements in the ICU of a tertiary university medical centre, between August 2022 and January 2025. Bleeding outcomes were assessed at three time points: 5 min, 30 min and within 24 h after insertion. Blood loss was evaluated semi-quantitatively based on the extent of gauze pad contamination.

Results: In total, 56 were performed using the two-stage technique and 36 using the traditional method. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Bleeding incidence was significantly lower in the two-stage group at all time points. At 5 min post-insertion, 93% of the patients in the two-stage group had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared to 28% in the traditional group. At 30 min, 84% had no visible or only minimal bleeding compared with 14% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the two-stage technique was independently associated with a reduced bleeding risk (OR, 0.019; 95% CI, 0.005-0.074; p < 0.001). An interaction analysis showed that aPTT significantly modified the association between technique and bleeding (OR, 20.519; 95% CI, 1.643-255.851; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The modified two-stage technique appears to be a feasible alternative to conventional PICC placement and was associated with reduced insertion-related bleeding in ICU patients. The technique also resulted in fewer dressing changes within 24 h, suggesting more stable haemostasis and potential improvements in ICU care quality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Vascular Access
Journal of Vascular Access 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
31.60%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Vascular Access (JVA) is issued six times per year; it considers the publication of original manuscripts dealing with clinical and laboratory investigations in the fast growing field of vascular access. In addition reviews, case reports and clinical trials are welcome, as well as papers dedicated to more practical aspects covering new devices and techniques. All contributions, coming from all over the world, undergo the peer-review process. The Journal of Vascular Access is divided into independent sections, each led by Editors of the highest scientific level: • Dialysis • Oncology • Interventional radiology • Nutrition • Nursing • Intensive care Correspondence related to published papers is also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信