导管
医学
危险系数
置信区间
回顾性队列研究
临床终点
外科
中心静脉导管
内科学
随机对照试验
作者
Mathijs van Oevelen,Alferso C Abrahams,Marcel C. Weijmer,Tjerko Nagtegaal,Friedo W. Dekker,Jan Rotmans,Sabine C A Meijvis,Joost A. Bijlsma,Koen E.A. van der Bogt,A. van de Brug,C. E. Douma,Ewout J. Hoorn,Daphne H.T. IJpelaar,M. Jacqueline Krol-van Straaten,Kwok Wai Mui,Jan H.M. Tordoir,H.H. Vincent,Niek Zonnebeld
标识
DOI:10.1177/1129729818805954
摘要
Background: The main limitations of central venous catheters for haemodialysis access are infections and catheter malfunction. Our objective was to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters are comparable to tunnelled central venous catheters in terms of infection and catheter malfunction and to assess whether precurved non-tunnelled catheters are superior to straight catheters. Materials and methods: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, adult patients in whom a central venous catheter for haemodialysis was inserted between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was a combined endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of either an infection or catheter malfunction. The secondary endpoint was a combined endpoint of the removal of the central venous catheter due to either an infection or a catheter malfunction. Using multivariable analysis, cause-specific hazard ratios for endpoints were calculated for tunnelled catheter versus precurved non-tunnelled catheter, tunnelled catheter versus non-tunnelled catheter, and precurved versus straight non-tunnelled catheter. Results: A total of 1603 patients were included. No difference in reaching the primary endpoint was seen between tunnelled catheters, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–1.19, p = 0.48). Tunnelled catheters were removed less often, compared to precurved non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.46–0.93; p = 0.02). A trend for less infections and catheter malfunctions was seen in precurved jugular non-tunnelled catheters compared to straight non-tunnelled catheters (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.24–1.50; p = 0.28) and were removed less often (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–0.93; p = 0.03). Conclusion: Tunnelled central venous catheters and precurved non-tunnelled central venous catheters showed no difference in reaching the combined endpoint of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. Tunnelled catheters get removed less often because of infection/malfunction than precurved non-tunnelled catheters.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI