Introduction to Tunneled Venous Infusion Catheter (Hickman) Placement

CSurgeries ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Moushey ◽  
Junaid Raja ◽  
Fabian Gaupp ◽  
Melih Arici
2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982093820
Author(s):  
Blake Spitzer ◽  
Kevin Kirkland ◽  
Jared Reyes ◽  
Stephen D Helmer ◽  
Chad Ammar ◽  
...  

Purpose: This study examined the safety and efficacy of placing both a central venous dialysis catheter and a central venous catheter for infusion in the right internal jugular vein compared to only a central venous dialysis catheter. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review for all adult patients who underwent the placement of the right internal jugular dialysis catheter by a single surgeon. Patients were grouped based on whether they received a tunneled dual lumen dialysis catheter alone or in combination with a central venous infusion catheter in the right internal jugular vein. Catheter-related thrombosis, line infections, line malfunctions, pneumothorax, and need for line replacement were evaluated. Results: There were 97 patients in the dialysis catheter and central venous infusion line group and 63 patients in the dialysis catheter only group. The two groups were not different with regard to age (62.1 ± 16.3 years vs 57.9 ± 17.6 years) and gender (47.4% male vs 55.6% male). No significant differences were found in the incidence of thrombosis (1.0 % vs 0.0%, p > 0.999), line infection (2.1% vs 0.0%, p = 0.519), or line malfunctions (2.1% vs 0.0%, p = 0.516) in patients who did or did not have a central venous infusion catheter placed concomitantly with the dialysis catheter, respectively. No patients in either group had a pneumothorax. Conclusions: Although not currently utilized with frequency, these preliminary data indicate that placing both a dual lumen dialysis catheter and central venous infusion catheter in the right internal jugular simultaneously could be a viable option.


CSurgeries ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Moushey ◽  
David Kirwin ◽  
Fabian Gaupp ◽  
Jessica Lee

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1996-2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Ross ◽  
M. Nicolson ◽  
D. Cunningham ◽  
J. Valle ◽  
M. Seymour ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) (ECF) with the combination of mitomycin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU (MCF) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred eighty patients with adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and PVI 5-FU 200 mg/m2/d) or MCF (mitomycin 7 mg/m2 every 6 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, and PVI 5-FU 300 mg/m2/d) and analyzed for survival, response, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37% to 48%) with ECF and 44.1% (95% CI, 38% to 50%) with MCF (P = .692). Toxicity was tolerable, and there were only two toxic deaths. ECF resulted in more grade 3/4 neutropenia and grade 2 alopecia, but MCF caused more thrombocytopenia and plantar-palmar erythema. Median survival was 9.4 months with ECF and 8.7 months with MCF (P = .315); at 1 year, 40.2% (95% CI, 34% to 46%) of ECF and 32.7% (95% CI, 27% to 38%) of MCF patients were alive. Median failure-free survival was 7 months with both regimens. Global QOL scores were better with ECF at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: This study confirms response, survival, and QOL benefits of ECF observed in a previous randomized study. The equivalent efficacy of MCF was demonstrated, but QOL was superior with ECF. ECF remains one of the reference treatments for advanced esophagogastric cancer.


2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
M Kelleher ◽  
N.C Tebbutt ◽  
D Cunningham ◽  
J Andreyev ◽  
M Allen ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 274 (1) ◽  
pp. R97-R103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuhiro Nishida ◽  
Isao Sugimoto ◽  
Hironobu Morita ◽  
Hiroshi Murakami ◽  
Hiroshi Hosomi ◽  
...  

Sodium ions absorbed from the intestine are postulated to act on the liver to reflexly suppress renal sympathetic nerve activity (RSNA), resulting in inhibition of sodium reabsorption in the kidney. To test the hypothesis that the renal sympathoinhibitory response to portal venous NaCl infusion involves an action of arginine vasopressin (AVP) at the area postrema, we examined the effects of portal venous infusion of hypertonic NaCl on RSNA before and after lesioning of the area postrema (APL) or after pretreatment with an AVP V1 receptor antagonist (AVPX). Rabbits were chronically instrumented with portal and femoral venous catheters, femoral arterial catheters, and renal nerve electrodes. Portal venous infusion of 9.0% NaCl (0.02, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.15 ml ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ min−1of 9.0% NaCl for 10 min) produced a dose-dependent suppression of RSNA (−12 ± 3, −34 ± 3, −62 ± 5, and 80 ± 2%, respectively) that was greater than that produced by femoral vein infusion of 9.0% NaCl (2 ± 3, −3 ± 2, −12 ± 4, and −33 ± 3%, respectively). The suppression of RSNA produced by portal vein infusion of 9.0% NaCl was partially reversed by pretreatment with AVPX (−9 ± 3, −20 ± 3, −41 ± 4, and −55 ± 4%, respectively) and by APL (−11 ± 2, −25 ± 2, −49 ± 3, and −59 ± 6%, respectively). There were no significant differences between the effects of AVPX and APL, and the effect of APL was not augmented by AVPX. These results indicate that the suppression of RSNA due to portal venous infusion of 9.0% NaCl involves an action of AVP via the area postrema.


1982 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-334
Author(s):  
J. F. L. Shaw

A new method of cannula protection is described. This allows the use of a shorter connection between the infusion pump and the mobile rat, and the whole apparatus is easily transportable.


2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne H Norris ◽  
Nabin K Shrestha ◽  
Genève M Allison ◽  
Sara C Keller ◽  
Kavita P Bhavan ◽  
...  

Abstract A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America to update the 2004 clinical practice guideline on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) [1]. This guideline is intended to provide insight for healthcare professionals who prescribe and oversee the provision of OPAT. It considers various patient features, infusion catheter issues, monitoring questions, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. It does not offer recommendations on the treatment of specific infections. The reader is referred to disease- or organism-specific guidelines for such support.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document