ライフサイエンスコーパス: central venous catheter

1 younger with intestinal failure requiring a central venous catheter.

2 eived intraosseous device, and 48 received a central venous catheter.

3 antithrombotic medication, and presence of a central venous catheter.

4 129,288 hospital discharges had evidence of central venous catheter.

5 mL of 28 degrees C 0.9% normal saline via a central venous catheter.

6 co-oximetry values of blood withdrawn from a central venous catheter.

7 n infection clearance without removal of the central venous catheter.

8 ess rates and faster placement compared with central venous catheters.

9 atheter-days, which is comparable to that of central venous catheters.

10 ith severe sepsis encourage the placement of central venous catheters.

11 ne chest radiograph for position controls of central venous catheters.

12 l heart defects, neutropenia, and indwelling central venous catheters.

13 in the lower limbs and 24 (68.6%) related to central venous catheters.

14 erally inserted central catheters and 66,194 central venous catheters.

15 om the chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine central venous catheters.

16 atients with cancer (with exceptions) or for central venous catheters.

17 penditures compared with synthetic grafts or central venous catheters.

18 te of vascular access for BAS or exposure to central venous catheters.

19 n decreases the amount of fibrin surrounding central venous catheters.

20 All had permanent central venous catheters.

21 asound-guided subclavian or internal jugular central venous catheters.

22 nfections compared with standard and heparin central venous catheters.

23 ripherally inserted central catheter: 0.73%, central venous catheter: 0.24%; p = 0.001) (peripherally

24 ripherally inserted central catheter: 0.93%, central venous catheter: 0.52%; p = 0.001) (peripherally

25 nificantly shorter for intraosseous than for central venous catheter (1.2 vs 10.7 min; p<0.001).

26 PICC (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.44-2.14; p=0.95) or central venous catheter (1.50, 0.77-2.91; p=0.23).

27 The rate of emergent central venous catheter/1,000 increased annually from 22

28 peripheral venous catheter and at least one central venous catheter: 1.92 (121/63) versus 1.13 (226/

29 Fifty residents inserted 73 elective central venous catheters (19, 31, and 23 by the video, p

30 ce interval -3.2, -4.2%) as compared with no central venous catheter (-2.9% per year, 95% confidence

31 m vs. no venous thromboembolism were femoral central venous catheter (23% vs. 8%), operative interven

32 e most common sources were skin/wound (25%), central venous catheters (24%), unknown source (20%), an

33 y greater for patients who received an early central venous catheter (-4.2% per year, 95% confidence

34 ted central catheter: 10.82/1,000 line days, central venous catheter: 4.97/1,000 line days) occurred

35 The most common sources were central venous catheters (41%) and pneumonia (20%).

36 ly assigned 502 children to receive standard central venous catheters, 486 to receive antibiotic-impr

37 ratory failure (39.8%) and the presence of a central venous catheter (50.9%) or tracheostomy (64.8%).

38 rted central catheter: 8.65/1,000 line days, central venous catheter: 6.29/1,000 line days) and centr

39 ristics included adult age (72%), indwelling central venous catheters (83%), recent surgery (29%), ne

40 d the following: vasoactive infusions (88%), central venous catheters (86%), mechanical ventilation (

41 We evaluated 18,554 central venous catheters: 9,331 from observational studi

42 gnificantly higher for intraosseous than for central venous catheter (90.3 vs 37.5%; 95% CI, 80-101 v

43 ceftriaxone or placebo twice daily through a central venous catheter administered at home by a traine

44 rapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or

45 ificantly fewer cultures were collected from central venous catheters after vs before the interventio

46 randomly assigned 135 patients to receive a central venous catheter and 128 patients to receive a pe

47 Serial blood cultures from a central venous catheter and a peripheral venous site gre

48 cribed the distribution of microorganisms in central venous catheter and arterial catheter-related bl

49 s catheters but subsequently crossed-over to central venous catheter and patients randomized to the c

50 race/ethnicity are associated with time on a central venous catheter and transition to an arterioveno

51 catheter-related complications were 201 with central venous catheters and 248 with peripheral venous

52 hereas group 2 was supporting.A total of 831 central venous catheters and 4,735 catheter days in 657

53 The insertion of central venous catheters and access to a critical care p

54 All had central venous catheters and an Acute Physiology and Chr

55 romyces boulardii; the risk factors included central venous catheters and disorders associated with i

56 but more so because of the increased use of central venous catheters and other technological advance

57 revention or treatment of fungal biofilms on central venous catheters and perhaps other medical devic

58 ications in two strategies: one favoring the central venous catheters and the other peripheral venous

59 eriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter) and risk for death, infection,

60 51% had undergone recent surgery, 73% had a central venous catheter, and 41% were receiving systemic

61 andomized studies comparing intraosseous and central venous catheter are warranted.

62 Candida biofilm-associated infections of central venous catheters are a challenging therapeutic p

63 Central venous catheters are a leading source of nosocom

64 Antiseptic or antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters are effective in decreasing cen

65 Central venous catheters are essential for the treatment

66 Central venous catheters are inserted earlier and more f

67 Impregnated central venous catheters are recommended for adults to r

68 peripherally inserted central catheters and central venous catheters, are often needed in critically

69 2015, 232 chronic hemodialysis patients with central venous catheters as vascular access had their Sc

70 ated (antibiotic or heparin) versus standard central venous catheters, assessed in the intention-to-t

71 decrease site-specific ICU infections (e.g., central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection

72 We describe three cases of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection

73 red initial therapy for cancer patients with central venous catheter-associated DVT, calf DVT, and un

74 eremia, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, central venous catheter-associated infection, and wound

75 l vein access, and repeated life-threatening central venous catheter-associated infections requiring

76 Patients with central venous catheter-associated S. aureus bacteremia

77 Thrombosis is a common complication of central venous catheter-associated S. aureus bacteremia.

78 the incidence of thrombosis in patients with central venous catheter-associated Staphylococcus aureus

79 for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis.

80 e were a total of 33 intraosseous versus 169 central venous catheter attempts with fewer attempts on

81 ls from Candida albicans grown in an in vivo central venous catheter biofilm model at 12 h (intermedi

82 Residents who inserted central venous catheters but received neither the paper

83 anatomical sites are commonly used to insert central venous catheters, but insertion at each site has

84 investigation, 48 rabbits with experimental central venous catheter C. albicans infection were equal

85 Using a central venous catheter Candida albicans biofilm model,

86 s has led to new approaches for treatment of central venous catheter Candida biofilms.

87 Among central venous catheter catheter-related bloodstream inf

88 Central venous catheters coated with 5-fluorouracil were

89 verse events were comparable between the two central venous catheter coatings.

90 susceptible to vancomycin was found to cause central venous catheter colonization in a patient who ne

91 hat a standardized approach to assessment of central venous catheter competency across programs is im

92 Bedside ultrasound reduced mean central venous catheter confirmation time by 58.3 minute

93 Widespread use of antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters could help prevent bloodstream

94 s decreased the total number of cultures and central venous catheter cultures, without an increase in

95 Conversely, removal of a central venous catheter (CVC) (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, .35-.72

96 ates frequently initiate hemodialysis with a central venous catheter (CVC) and subsequently undergo p

97 e biofilm removal efficiency in contaminated central venous catheter (CVC) coupons.

98 n the study population was 2.4 episodes/1000 central venous catheter (CVC) days [95% Poisson confiden

99 en after BM harvest, but also observed after central venous catheter (CVC) placement for PBSC collect

100 nalysis evaluating AV fistula, AV graft, and central venous catheter (CVC) strategies for patients in

101 Central venous catheter (CVC) thrombi result in signific

102 p vein thrombosis (DVT) is a complication of central venous catheter (CVC) use in children with cance

103 PAC with hemodynamic management guided by a central venous catheter (CVC) using an explicit manageme

104 rgoing hemodialysis (HD) through a prevalent central venous catheter (CVC) were randomly assigned to

105 ythropoiesis-stimulating agents, presence of central venous catheter (CVC), site of cancer, stage of

106 Asymptomatic central venous catheter (CVC)-related thrombosis in chil

107 in the United States start hemodialysis on a central venous catheter (CVC).

108 Central venous catheters (CVCs) are conduits for drug in

109 Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are important instrument

110 Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs) are often used in patien

111 Complications associated with central venous catheters (CVCs) increase over time.

112 s with cancer receiving chemotherapy through central venous catheters (CVCs) is controversial.

113 risk relative to that associated with other central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown.

114 trials shows that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce catheter-related

115 The efficacy of antimicrobial central venous catheters (CVCs) remains questionable.

116 omized controlled study with 975 nontunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) showed that the semiquan

117 prolonged bloodstream access, especially via central venous catheters (CVCs), are risk factors among

118 ased with the majority of cases secondary to central venous catheters (CVCs).

119 rrelated problems associated with the use of central venous catheters (CVL).

120 Placement of a central venous catheter early in septic shock has increa

121 sly in the human right atrium by a dedicated central venous catheter equipped with an impedance measu

122 Patients were randomized to receive a central venous catheter externally coated with either 5-

123 Our results suggest that central venous catheters externally coated with 5-fluoro

124 ve was to compare the safety and efficacy of central venous catheters externally coated with 5-fluoro

125 ensive care unit and were expected to need a central venous catheter for 3 or more days.

126 ion of soy lipid-based PN solution through a central venous catheter for 7 (PN7d/DSS) and 28 (PN28d/D

127 Collection of blood through a central venous catheter for the diagnosis of bacteremia

128 s) owing to children's chronic dependence on central venous catheters for parenteral nutrition.

129 ebrile pediatric patients with cancer with a central venous catheter from April 2015 to August 2019 a

130 n the peripheral venous catheter than in the central venous catheter group (133 vs 87, respectively,

131 Nine children (2%) in the standard central venous catheter group, 14 (3%) in the antibiotic

132 nous catheter and patients randomized to the central venous catheter group.

133 In multivariable analysis, central venous catheters had decreased association with

134 Pressure-injectable central venous catheters had significantly greater rates

135 Central venous catheters have become a mainstay in the c

136 or heparin) catheters compared with standard central venous catheters (hazard ratio [HR] for time to

137 d product transfusions, invasive procedures, central venous catheters, hemodialysis, and mechanical v

138 s catheters (HR 0.43, 0.20-0.96) and heparin central venous catheters (HR 0.42, 0.19-0.93), but hepar

139 l venous catheters were better than standard central venous catheters (HR 0.43, 0.20-0.96) and hepari

140 3), but heparin did not differ from standard central venous catheters (HR 1.04, 0.53-2.03).

141 uously monitored at the site of the 16-gauge central venous catheter hub.

142 ncluded a diagnosis of cancer, presence of a central venous catheter, hyperglycemia (glucose level, >

143 cs often requires central venous line (CVC - Central Venous Catheter) implantation for carrying out t

144 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a central venous catheter impregnated with antibiotics, a

145 ous catheter impregnated with antibiotics, a central venous catheter impregnated with heparin, or a s

146 Biofilms recovered from infected central venous catheters in a rat model of device-relate

147 am infection and venous thromboembolism than central venous catheters in children admitted to the PIC

148 l blood cultures and cultures collected from central venous catheters in critically ill children and

149 For short-term (median duration 7 days) central venous catheters in intensive care units with hi

150 ion to kidneys and prevented colonization of central venous catheters in mice.

151 t1) markedly attenuated biofilm formation in central venous catheters in rats, whereas alanine substi

152 d with chest radiography for confirmation of central venous catheters in sufficient detail to reconst

153 The sheath that develops around central venous catheters in the swine model consists of

154 eus biofilm infection when used in a CLS rat central venous catheter infection model.

155 The objective was to assess the risk of central venous catheter infection with respect to the si

156 in rabbits, staphylococcal and enterococcal central venous catheter infections in rats, and 24-hour

157 loodstream infections related to nontunneled central venous catheters inserted at the femoral site as

158 Central venous catheters inserted either in the internal

159 We aimed to establish whether nontunneled central venous catheters inserted in the subclavian vein

160 in residency training, specialty, number of central venous catheters inserted, and central venous ca

161 Data examining the timing of central venous catheter insertion among critically ill p

162 e minimum passing score for internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and 11 (14%) of 76 res

163 ram increased residents' skills in simulated central venous catheter insertion and decreased complica

164 ropriate hand hygiene and best practices for central venous catheter insertion and maintenance can re

165 ization and 2) the association between early central venous catheter insertion and mortality in patie

166 e minimum passing score for internal jugular central venous catheter insertion and only 11 of 47 (23.

167 ses were more likely than physicians to list central venous catheter insertion as an important barrie

168 The mortality associated with early central venous catheter insertion decreased after public

169 We examined the hypothesis that prompt central venous catheter insertion during hospitalization

170 lthough real-time ultrasound guidance during central venous catheter insertion has become a standard

171 s' abilities to ensure trainee competence in central venous catheter insertion in the setting of vari

172 Early central venous catheter insertion increased from 5.7% (9

173 A single-operator ultrasound-guided central venous catheter insertion is effective in verify

174 Earlier central venous catheter insertion may require systematic

175 study demonstrates highly variable simulated central venous catheter insertion performance among a na

176 ical Centers attending physicians' simulated central venous catheter insertion performance to the sam

177 Hospital mortality associated with early central venous catheter insertion significantly decrease

178 Selection of central venous catheter insertion site in ICU patients c

179 Attending physicians' central venous catheter insertion skills are not assesse

180 Using a previously published central venous catheter insertion skills checklist, we c

181 ents were randomly assigned within 12 hrs of central venous catheter insertion to receive either hepa

182 e point of care use of ultrasound can reduce central venous catheter insertion to use time, exposure

183 gle-operator ultrasound-guided, right-sided, central venous catheter insertion verifies proper placem

184 se events in the subset of children for whom central venous catheter insertion was attempted (per-pro

185 urse on recommended sterile practices during central venous catheter insertion was developed.

186 quivocally recommended as a first choice for central venous catheter insertion.

187 rs, improved sterile-practice compliance for central venous catheter insertion.

188 adiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion.

189 ded the minimum passing score for subclavian central venous catheter insertion.

190 met the minimum passing score for subclavian central venous catheter insertion: mean (internal jugula

191 Consecutive central venous catheter insertions from 12 noon to 12 mi

192 rtion and decreased complications related to central venous catheter insertions in actual patient car

193 Central venous catheter insertions may lead to preventab

194 ne training course containing video clips of central venous catheter insertions on compliance with st

195 acheal intubations, 1,272 arterial and 2,586 central venous catheter insertions, 457 fiberoptic bronc

196 .3% pneumothorax with jugular and subclavian central venous catheter insertions, respectively.

197 ons, 14 arterial catheter insertions, and 26 central venous catheter insertions.

198 training in internal jugular and subclavian central venous catheter insertions.

199 Placement of a central venous catheter is necessary to administer goal-

200 eferred flushing solution for short-term use central venous catheter maintenance.

201 When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultr

202 41; 95% CI, 2.14-9.09), and discharge with a central venous catheter (mOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.13-4.99) o

203 atheters (n = 1,653; 36.3%) and single-lumen central venous catheters (n = 1,233; 27.0%).

204 Thapsigargin was infused into a central venous catheter of intact, sedated, and mechanic

205 atheter-associated S. aureus bacteremia with central venous catheters of the internal jugular, brachi

206 Risk factors for VTE were presence of a central venous catheter, older age, and number of chroni

207 survey was conducted among intraosseous and central venous catheter operators to assess their experi

208 f catheter-related bloodstream infection and central venous catheter or arterial catheter colonizatio

209 required a catheterization with a short-term central venous catheter or peripheral arterial catheter

210 justed model, having the capability to place central venous catheters or having a subscription to a t

211 Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters or peripheral venous catheters

212 ilization and enhanced mechanisms to measure central venous catheter outcomes.

213 rsus femoral, P=0.8) or by the presence of a central venous catheter (P=0.4).

214 The primary outcomes measured were annual central venous catheters per 1,000 hospitalizations that

215 Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are prone to infectious

216 catheter days) in patients with nontunneled central venous catheters placed in the femoral site as c

217 tile range) number of total internal jugular central venous catheters placed was 27 (interquartile ra

218 ion of training and competence assessment of central venous catheter placement across pediatric criti

219 checklist-based tool when evaluating fellow central venous catheter placement competence under direc

220 Inadvertent carotid sheath insertion during central venous catheter placement could lead to serious

221 ance and utilization against landmark-guided central venous catheter placement during inpatient medic

222 s in cardiac arrests and secondary access if central venous catheter placement failed during noncardi

223 eptic shock, with an increased rate of early central venous catheter placement identified after 2007.

224 Central venous catheter placement is a common procedure

225 Although 98% of programs provide formalized central venous catheter placement training for first-yea

226 ltrasound-guided right internal jugular vein central venous catheter placement was 96.9% with an aver

227 let transfusion for patients having elective central venous catheter placement with a platelet count

228 alert activation, infusion of 2 L of fluid, central venous catheter placement, and antibiotic admini

229 During ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement, correct positioning o

230 , intubation, transfusion of blood products, central venous catheter placement, presence of pelvic or

231 rrently exists across programs for assessing central venous catheter placement.

232 Fifteen studies with 1,553 central venous catheter placements were identified with

233 cy of bedside ultrasound for confirmation of central venous catheter position and exclusion of pneumo

234 complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position.

235 st radiograph when used to accurately assess central venous catheter positioning and screen for pneum

236 y for screening of pneumothorax and accurate central venous catheter positioning.

237 izing motif 1 abolished biofilm formation in central venous catheters; preimmune IgG had no effect.

238 of a complete guide wire during placement of central venous catheters published up to December 2014 w

239 Urgent and late central venous catheter rates trended down (p < 0.001).

240 Safety analyses compared central venous catheter-related adverse events in the su

241 evention programs has been shown to decrease central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection ra

242 evaluate technologies applied to preventing central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection to

243 e main tools for prevention and diagnosis of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections i

244 venous catheters are effective in decreasing central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections.

245 There was no difference in central venous catheter-related complications per patien

246 terior wall penetrations may result in fewer central venous catheter-related complications.

247 ee intraosseous-related complications and 22 central venous catheter-related complications.

248 No patient had central venous catheter-related deep vein thrombosis.

249 Four cases of central venous catheter-related Methylobacterium radioto

250 level model, the odds of undergoing emergent central venous catheter relative to 2003 increased annua

251 atory cancer patients, especially those with central venous catheters, remains to be explored.

252 up, required antibiotics in 81% of cases and central venous catheter removal in 51% (P = 0.001).

253 factors for clinical failure, whereas early central venous catheter removal was protective (AOR, 0.4

254 ween 48 h after randomisation and 48 h after central venous catheter removal with impregnated (antibi

255 hexidine-impregnated sponge for arterial and central venous catheters saves money by preventing major

256 ral or peripheral venous access requirement, central venous catheters should preferably be inserted:

257 higher than 3 (SHR 2.8; 95% CI, 2.1-3.7), a central venous catheter (SHR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.2) and u

258 Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters significantly reduced the risk

259 after the educational intervention), using a central venous catheter simulator.

260 er of central venous catheters inserted, and central venous catheter site chosen, the video group was

261 A central venous catheter source was more common with a BS

262 Tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) are used for dialysis a

263 r injection with the particular triple-lumen central venous catheter tested in this study, as the man

264 Among central venous catheter, the distribution of microorgani

265 ons and procedural self-confidence on actual central venous catheters they inserted in the medical in

266 ons and procedural self-confidence on actual central venous catheters they inserted in the medical in

267 Central venous catheter thrombosis can cause venous obst

268 iograph remains the gold standard to confirm central venous catheter tip position and rule out associ

269 009-2014, a 17% decline occurred annually in central venous catheter tips sent for culture: a 6-fold

270 ntibiotic or heparin) compared with standard central venous catheters to prevent bloodstream infectio

271 sseous device training was added to standard central venous catheter training beginning in February 2

272 ns around the ability of a fellow to place a central venous catheter under indirect supervision are l

273 ood was drawn from an indwelling arterial or central venous catheter up to 24 hours after C acetamino

274 001), and a significant relative increase in central venous catheter use (P = .02) (10th quarter adju

275 ss transition from one phase to another, and central venous catheter use in the home setting was show

276 es were intensive care unit admission rates, central venous catheter use, Clostridium difficile infec

277 ministration of chemotherapy within 30 days, central venous catheter use, or erythropoietin therapy.

278 blication of evidence-based instructions for central venous catheter use.

279 volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinary catheters, perc

280 In this Review we present the types of central venous catheters used in this patient population

281 We identified the occurrence and timing of central venous catheter using International Classificati

282 sought to evaluate nationwide trends in: 1) central venous catheter utilization and 2) the associati

283 s catheter placement, correct positioning of central venous catheter was accomplished by real-time vi

284 A special central venous catheter was developed to measure electri

285 The clinician responsible for inserting the central venous catheter was not masked to allocation, bu

286 LTCF) residence within 1 year prior; or if a central venous catheter was present <=2 days prior.

287 iotics were not provided in 71% of cases and central venous catheter was retained in 83%, the low-col

288 Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic central venous catheters were better than standard centr

289 es of organisms from blood collected through central venous catheters were found to be highly sensiti

290 Arterial and central venous catheters were inserted and IV rocuronium

291 In 2003, 5,759 central venous catheters were placed emergently compared

292 In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when

293 Three hundred twenty-six central venous catheters were studied yielding 709 lumen

294 icans is a leading pathogen in infections of central venous catheters, which are frequently infused w

295 a novel method to visualize the position of central venous catheters, which is safe, expeditious, an

296 A 9.5-Fr central venous catheter with 19 embedded electrodes was

297 eter impregnated with heparin, or a standard central venous catheter with computer generated randomis

298 Accurate positioning of central venous catheter with ultrasound was then confirm

299 Coating of central venous catheters with 5-fluorouracil may reduce

300 chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine coated central venous catheters with respect to the incidence o