ライフサイエンスコーパス: central catheter

1 ncrease risk to the patient beyond that of a central catheter.

2 line days) occurred in peripherally inserted central catheters.

3 s comparable to those with surgically placed central catheters.

4 = 0.043) compared with peripherally inserted central catheters.

5 ital venipuncture or peripheral insertion of central catheters.

6 bloodstream infection (peripherally inserted central catheter: 0.73%, central venous catheter: 0.24%;

7 enous thromboembolism (peripherally inserted central catheter: 0.93%, central venous catheter: 0.52%;

8 er: 0.24%; p = 0.001) (peripherally inserted central catheter: 10.82/1,000 line days, central venous

9 ss likely to receive a peripherally inserted central catheter (2.5%, n = 3 vs 30.4%, n = 58; P < .001

10 er: 0.52%; p = 0.001) (peripherally inserted central catheter: 8.65/1,000 line days, central venous c

11 olus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter

12 old saline bolus via both centrally inserted central catheter and either a single-lumen 4F or a doubl

13 lines including 4,493 peripherally inserted central catheters and 66,194 central venous catheters.

14 ess devices, including peripherally inserted central catheters and central venous catheters, are ofte

15 lues were compared for culture of blood from central catheters and culture of blood from peripheral v

16 speculate that reducing the use of invasive central catheters and endotracheal intubation for lower-

17 The lungs were lavaged after placement of central catheters and tracheostomy to lower respiratory

18 to day 7 for dialysis, peripherally inserted central catheters, and unspecified central line types.

19 Tunneled jugular small-bore central catheters are a vein-preserving alternative to p

20 Peripherally inserted central catheters are associated with higher rates of ce

21 Peripherally inserted central catheters are increasingly used in ICU as an alt

22 Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection events

23 Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection preven

24 sociated bloodstream infections and a median central catheter-associated bloodstream infection rate o

25 Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates

26 We report the progressive reduction of central catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates

27 inal failure are at high risk for developing central catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CCAB

28 as associated with an immediate reduction in central catheter-associated bloodstream infections (coef

29 no significant changes in quarterly rates of central catheter-associated bloodstream infections (inci

30 ter this project produced a 66% reduction in central catheter-associated bloodstream infections and a

31 ctions that were targeted by the CMS policy (central catheter-associated bloodstream infections and c

32 t the 2008 CMS policy to reduce payments for central catheter-associated bloodstream infections and c

33 d having a data collection system to monitor central catheter-associated bloodstream infections and o

34 ence into practice at the bedside to prevent central catheter-associated bloodstream infections, impr

35 er of centers for electronic surveillance of central catheter-associated bloodstream infections, vent

36 three stepwise interventions on the rate of central catheter-associated bloodstream infections.

37 Device-associated infections (i.e., central-catheter-associated bloodstream infection, cathe

38 d or improperly supervised insertions of the central catheters by trainees, distractions during inser

39 on at the injection site and accumulation in central catheters can lead to limited tumor (18)F-FDG up

40 s regression was used to analyze patient and central catheter characteristics, and interrupted time s

41 rk criteria were reported as events per 1000 central catheter days.

42 itional BCx quality indicators, and limiting central catheter-drawn BCx were associated with lower BC

43 olus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter for transpulmonary thermodilution using

44 ICU as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters for IV infusion.

45 outcomes of 8269 hospitalized patients with central catheters from October 1, 2012, to September 30,

46 outcomes were invasive monitoring (arterial/central catheters), hospital length of stay, and cost.

47 No fewer than 78% of patients had a central catheter in place at the time of diagnosis, and

48 tive attempts to place peripherally inserted central catheters in children.

49 serving alternative to peripherally inserted central catheters in this population.

50 infections included wound infections (62%), central catheter infections and/or bacteremia (16%), and

51 One hundred twenty-four central catheter infections were reported in 41 subjects

52 dy compares core temperatures in swine after central catheter infusions of saline ice slurry (saline

53 serial historic controls who had unassisted central catheter insertion at the same sites.

54 laxis (>/=3 months) had fewer median (range) central catheter insertions 0 (0-2) vs 3 (0-6); P = .001

55 dstream infection rates and safety outcomes (central catheter insertions, repairs, and hospitalizatio

56 ly guided placement of peripherally inserted central catheters is a safe and effective method for est

57 The rate of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications was 3.2% in the intr

58 overdoses, deaths, or peripherally inserted central catheter-line complications were reported.

59 using single-lumen 4F peripherally inserted central catheter (mean cardiac index, 4.2 vs 3.7 L/min/m

60 entral catheter than with centrally inserted central catheter (mean, 4.5 vs 3.3 L/min/m; p < 0.0001;

61 rted were single-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 1,653; 36.3%) and single-lumen ce

62 ) The risks are mainly due to insertion of a central catheter, not a pulmonary artery catheter; b) co

63 s, culture of blood drawn through either the central catheter or peripheral vein shows excellent nega

64 perfluorocarbon-coated peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line and its effectiveness in re

65 ment of a double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a tunneled central venous cat

66 or intravenously via a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC).

67 nteral nutrition (PN), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), and hospital cost.

68 ll transfusion through peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) affects the risk of venous thr

69 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are frequently us

70 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a common vascular access d

71 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increas

72 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used for periph

73 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver

74 renteral nutrition via peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) associated with better deliver

75 Insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) at the bedside may result in t

76 f midline catheters vs peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral anti

77 Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in rec

78 efficacy compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evalua

79 Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have a 29% complication rate.

80 avoiding placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients with chronic kidne

81 catheter materials for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reduce the risk of device

82 ng CVCs, the number of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) placed has risen significantly

83 d catheters (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (

84 d possible overuse, of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).

85 most other centres use peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs).

86 re must be taken even with ultrasound-guided central catheter placement and that alternative ultrasou

87 e upper limit of guidewire introduced during central catheter placement in adults.

88 est port placement and peripherally inserted central catheter placement) were compared with a one-way

89 e "best practice" checklists were developed: central catheter placement, consultation, family discuss

90 ry artery catheter, or peripherally inserted central catheter placement; lumbar puncture; thoracentes

91 pitalizations and infections associated with central-catheter placement did not differ significantly

92 Tracheal intubation, central catheters, pneumonia, sepsis, and nonsurgical st

93 ll had placed at least one ultrasound-guided central catheter previously.

94 rted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter (reference standard) using a transpulmo

95 and OS, with different toxicity profiles and central catheter requirements.

96 for the 3.0- and 4.0-F peripherally inserted central catheters, respectively; 0.7-1.2 mL/sec for the

97 d with double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter than with centrally inserted central ca

98 nts (33%) developed venous thromboses at the central catheter tip.

99 red at home through a peripheral intravenous central catheter using an elastomeric pump for 12 to 16

100 F or a double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter using were compared.

101 y when double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter was used (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03834675

102 enal insufficiency or failure, 43 small-bore central catheters were placed via the internal or extern