Safety and effectiveness of subcutaneously anchored securement for tunneled central catheters in oncological pediatric patients: A retrospective study

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982110093
Author(s):  
Alessandro Crocoli ◽  
Cristina Martucci ◽  
Luca Sidro ◽  
Daniela Delle Donne ◽  
Giuseppe Menna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Local Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Central Catheters ◽  
Catheter Related Thrombosis ◽  
Oncological Pediatric

Background: Proper securement of central venous catheters plays an important role in onco-hematological pediatric patients. A new subcutaneously anchored securement device has been recently introduced in the clinical practice, and it has been extensively used in children. Method: In our study, we have retrospectively investigated the safety and the effectiveness of such device, reviewing the experience of three Italian pediatric oncological units. We have considered only tunneled catheters (cuffed or non-cuffed) inserted in children with malignancy; all types of tunneled central catheters were included in the analysis (both centrally and peripherally inserted) as long as they were secured with a subcutaneously anchored device. We investigated the incidence of dislodgment and of other catheter-related complications, with special attention to local adverse effects potentially related to the securement device. Results: We collected data from 311 tunneled catheters of different caliber: 80.4% were centrally inserted central catheters (CICC), 15.4% were peripherally inserted (PICC), and 4.2% were femorally inserted. Approximately half of the catheters (51%) were non-cuffed. Incidence of dislodgment was very low (2.6%) and the incidence of local pain or inflammation potentially related to the securement device was minimal (1.9%). Catheter related bacteremias were below 1 episode/1000 catheter days. No symptomatic catheter related thrombosis was reported. There was no significant difference in complications comparing cuffed versus non-cuffed catheters, or CICCs versus PICCs, or hematologic tumors versus solid tumors. Conclusion: In our retrospective analysis of a vast population of oncological pediatric patients with tunneled central catheters, the subcutaneously anchored securement device was tolerated very well, and it was highly effective in preventing dislodgment, both in cuffed and non-cuffed catheters.

scholarly journals Risk factors for unplanned removal of central venous catheters in hospitalized children with hematological and oncological disorders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moe Miyagishima ◽  
Hamada Motoharu ◽  
Yuji Hirayama ◽  
Hideki Muramatsu ◽  
Takahisa Tainaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Subdistribution Hazard ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been essential devices for the treatment of children with hematological and oncological disorders. Only few studies investigated the complications and selections of different types of CVCs in these pediatric patients. This study aimed to compare risk factors for unplanned removal of two commonly used CVCs, i.e., peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and tunneled CVCs, and propose better device selection for the patient. Procedure: This retrospective, single center cohort analysis was conducted on pediatric patients with hematological and oncological disorders inserted with either a PICC or a tunneled CVC. Results: Between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, 89 patients inserted with tunneled CVCs (total 21,395 catheter-days) and 84 with PICCs (total 9,177 catheter-days) were followed up until the catheter removal. The median duration of catheterization was 88 days in PICCs and 186 days in tunneled CVCs (p = 1.24×10-9). PICCs at the 3-month cumulative incidence of catheter occlusion (5.2% vs. 0%, p = 4.08×10-3) and total unplanned removal (29.0% vs 7.0%, p = 0.0316) were significantly higher, whereas no significant difference was observed in the cumulative incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (11.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.664). Multivariable analysis identified younger age (<2 years) (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–4.14) and PICCs (SHR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.48–5.02) were independent risk factors for unplanned removal. Conclusion: Our results suggest that tunnel CVCs would be a preferred device for children with hematological and oncological disorders requiring long-term, intensive treatment.

scholarly journals Risk factors for unplanned removal of central venous catheters in hospitalized children with hematological and oncological disorders

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moe Miyagishima ◽  
Motoharu Hamada ◽  
Yuji Hirayama ◽  
Hideki Muramatsu ◽  
Takahisa Tainaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Subdistribution Hazard ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract ObjectiveCentral venous catheters (CVCs) have been essential devices for the treatment of children with hematological and oncological disorders. Only few studies investigated the complications and selections of different types of CVCs in these pediatric patients. This study aimed to compare risk factors for unplanned removal of two commonly used CVCs, i.e., peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and tunneled CVCs, and propose better device selection for the patient.MethodsThis retrospective, single center cohort analysis was conducted on pediatric patients with hematological and oncological disorders inserted with either a PICC or a tunneled CVC.ResultsBetween January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, 89 patients inserted with tunneled CVCs (total 21,395 catheter-days) and 84 with PICCs (total 9,177 catheter-days) were followed up until the catheter removal. The median duration of catheterization was 88 days in PICCs and 186 days in tunneled CVCs (p = 1.24×10-9). PICCs at the 3-month cumulative incidence of catheter occlusion (5.2% vs. 0%, p = 4.08×10-3) and total unplanned removal (29.0% vs 7.0%, p = 0.0316) were significantly higher, whereas no significant difference was observed in the cumulative incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (11.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.664). Multivariable analysis identified younger age (<2 years) (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–4.14) and PICCs (SHR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.48–5.02) were independent risk factors for unplanned removal.ConclusionOur results suggest that tunnel CVCs would be a preferred device for children with hematological and oncological disorders requiring long-term, intensive treatment.

Thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters

2008 ◽  
Vol 99 (01) ◽  
pp. 38-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Nautiyal ◽  
Sangeetha Radhakrishnan ◽  
Sonal Singh ◽  
Sankar D Navaneethan ◽  
Pooja Chaukiyal
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Catheter Related Thrombosis

SummaryIt was the aim of the review to determine the risks and benefits of primary thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants in cancer patients with central venous devices. Medline, Central and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in June 2006.Two reviewers extracted data and appraised the quality of RCTs. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects model for the outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis, bleeding and thrombocytopenia. Eight RCTs (1,428 patients) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of catheter-related thrombosis for the use of warfarin versus placebo (3 trials, 425 patients, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.24–2.35,p=0.63),heparin versus placebo (4 trials,886 patients, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.18–1.20, p=0.06) or warfarin, unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin versus placebo (7 trials, 1,311 patients, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–1.13, p=0.11). Substantial statistical heterogeneity was noted among these trials (I2>50%).The use of anticoagulants showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of overall bleeding (5 trials, 1,193 patients, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84–1.82, p=0.28), and thrombocytopenia for heparin versus placebo (4 trials, 958 patients, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.49, 1.46, p=0.55) without any statistical heterogeneity (I2=0%). In cancer patients with central venous devices, thromboprophylaxis has no significant effect on the risk of catheter related thrombosis or bleeding. The use of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters while not causing any harm provides no benefit.

scholarly journals Taurolock versus saline 5% on preventing infection and dysfunction of hemodialysis catheters; a randomized, double blind controlled clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e25-e25
Author(s):  
Ali Ghorbani ◽  
Fatemeh Hayati ◽  
Mehrdad Dargahi-MalAmir ◽  
Maryam Afkane
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Organic Solution ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Catheter Related Infection ◽  
Prevention Of Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Dysfunction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prevention Of Infections

Introduction: Despite the higher rate of morbidity and mortality, the use of central venous catheters has increased significantly compared to arteriovenous fistula. So far, no ideal organic solution has been identified for the prevention of thrombosis and catheter-related infection in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Taurolock versus saline 5% on the prevention of catheter dysfunction and catheter-related infections. Patients and Methods: Seventy patients with chronic kidney disease, who requiring hemodialysis or those with permanent hemodialysis catheters referring to hemodialysis centers of Ahvaz, were selected and randomly divided into two groups, while 68 patients remained until the end of the study. In the first group, saline 5% was inserted into the lumen of catheter after each hemodialysis, and then catheter was blocked. In the second group, Taurolock solution (TauroLock™ -Hep 500®: Taurolidine; antimicrobial agent), citrate 4% and heparin (UI/mL) were used as antibiotics. Results: No significant difference between the catheter-related infection and positive blood culture in both saline and Taurolock groups was detected (2.94% versus 2.94%; P >0.05). Moreover, the catheter-related dysfunction in the saline 5% group was 5% less than the Taurolock group (2.94% versus 11.76%, P = 0.365). Conclusion: The results showed that saline 5% is at least as effective as a Taurolock solution for prevention of infections and catheter dysfunction. Saline is an effective, inexpensive, safe and readily available in various settings. Therefore, it could be considered as a proper alternative solution for reduction of dialysis-related side effects and costs. Trial Registration: Registration of trial protocol has been approved in Iranian registry of controlled trials (identifier: IRCT20190304042918N1; https://en.irct.ir/trial/38055, ethical code# IR.AJUMS.REC.1397.412).

Thrombus and thrombosis in cancer patients with permanent venous catheters

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. 143-145
Author(s):  
H. D. Bruhn ◽  
F. Gieseler
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Vascular Lumen ◽  
Additive Risk ◽  
Thrombotic Complications ◽  
Port Systems ◽  
Central Catheters

SummaryCancer patients have additive risk factors for thrombosis especially if permanent central catheters (port systems) are used for the delivery of chemotherapy. In our hospital the rate of thrombotic complications is below 5% for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy via port systems. This is in contrast to clinical studies, which have shown that up to 60% of catheters acquire clots that obstruct more than 50% of the vascular lumen. It is reasonable to believe that complications arising from thrombotic catheter alterations, such as bacterial hosting or micro-emboli, are clinically underestimated. The identification of thrombotic alterations of permanent central venous catheters in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy is substantial for the estimation whether anticoagulation strategies should be used as prophylaxis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document