ライフサイエンスコーパス: catheter-related infection

1 atheter-related infections, 57.1% bacteremic catheter-related infections).

2 t of intravascular catheter colonisation and catheter-related infection.

3 nterventions can reduce the risk for serious catheter-related infection.

4 her this is relevant to an increased risk of catheter-related infection.

5 e presumed gut translocation, mucositis, and catheter-related infection.

6 rtion site in ICU patients could help reduce catheter-related infections.

7 te as the sonication method for diagnosis of catheter-related infections.

8 us aureus (S. aureus) is a frequent cause of catheter-related infections.

9 09/1,000 catheter-days) presented bacteremic catheter-related infections.

10 lusion could be reached regarding bacteremic catheter-related infections.

11 common and was an important risk factor for catheter-related infections.

12 ures did not reduce catheter colonization or catheter-related infections.

13 sease, often in the setting of intravascular catheter-related infections.

14 theter maintenance decrease the frequency of catheter-related infections.

15 tream infection in patients at high risk for catheter-related infections.

16 rom groups considered to be at high risk for catheter-related infections.

17 cently been introduced for the prevention of catheter-related infections.

18 Tunneling decreases central venous catheter-related infections.

19 hogen (37.1% episodes of colonization, 36.4% catheter-related infections, 57.1% bacteremic catheter-r

20 on all costs and on the probability of major catheter-related infection according to the Dressing Stu

21 The risk of major catheter-related infection and catheter-related bloodstr

22 The fibrin sheath significantly enhanced catheter-related infection and persistent bacteremia.

23 Phase 1: Proportions of catheter-related infections and catheter-related bactere

24 Costs directly related to major catheter-related infections and the costs of chlorhexidi

25 most cases when possible, in particular for catheter-related infections and ventilator-associated pn

26 atheter-related bloodstream infection, major catheter-related infection, and catheter-tip colonizatio

27 identified 296 colonized catheters, 29 major catheter-related infections, and 23 catheter-related blo

28 onsible for soft-tissue and bone infections, catheter-related infections, and possible pneumonitis.

29 rmining biofilm formation and progression to catheter- related infection are incompletely understood.

30 Central venous catheter-related infections are a significant medical pr

31 rosthetic joint infection, and intravascular catheter-related infection, are associated with biofilm

32 clinical evidence of sepsis, and bacteremia catheter-related infection as catheter-related infection

33 ctors and practice modifications involved in catheter-related infections as well as a verbal in-servi

34 tive culture technique for the evaluation of catheter-related infections caused by organisms other th

35 e authors assessed catheter colonization and catheter-related infection, characterized microbes by mo

36 nd chlorhexidine had a smaller proportion of catheter-related infection compared with unprotected cat

37 Clinical studies of ethanol lock to prevent catheter-related infections (CRIs) suggest preventive ef

38 The rate of catheter-related infection decreased from 4.51 infection

39 roportion of protected triple-lumen catheter catheter-related infections decreased significantly (p =

40 eloping hospital-onset pneumonia and urinary catheter-related infection during hospitalization for el

41 egard to causality were febrile neutropenia, catheter-related infection, epistaxis, hypotension, naus

42 e staphylococci (CoNS) are the main cause of catheter-related infections, especially among immunosupp

43 us catheters saves money by preventing major catheter-related infections, even in intensive care unit

44 is well tolerated, reduces the incidence of catheter-related infection, extends the time that noncuf

45 wire exchange were analyzed, and the rate of catheter-related infection for each indication was deriv

46 The rate of catheter-related infection for introducers was the same

47 The proportion of catheter-related infections for catheters changed for fe

48 The proportion of catheter-related infections for catheters changed for su

49 CVCs is recommended to decrease the risk of catheter-related infections for short-term CVCs, particu

50 ated sponge decreased the incidence of major catheter-related infections from 1.4 per thousand to 0.6

51 cy in a clinically relevant in vivo model of catheter-related infection, gentamicin supplemented with

52 ssing disruptions in the occurrence of major catheter-related infection has never been studied in a l

53 confidence interval 0.56-2.61; p = .64) and catheter-related infections (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% conf

54 95% confidence interval 0.46-2.21; p = .98; catheter-related infection: hazard ratio 0.72; 95% confi

55 s in the differential diagnosis of suspected catheter related infection in patients with intestinal f

56 The overall rate of catheter-related infection in phase 1 was 15% (15% for t

57 antimicrobial CVC impregnations in reducing catheter-related infections in adults.

58 most frequent cause of nosocomial sepsis and catheter-related infections, in which biofilm formation

59 mained cost saving assuming a baseline major catheter-related infection incidence as low as 0.35 per

60 Assuming a baseline major catheter-related infection incidence of 1.4 per thousand

61 Major catheter-related infection includes catheter-related blo

62 tio [HR], 0.63 [0.25-1.63]; P = 0.34), major catheter-related infection (internal jugular 1.8 vs. fem

63 intensive care units with low baseline major catheter-related infection levels.

64 lly at institutions with a high incidence of catheter-related infection; no routine replacement of ce

65 Overall, catheter-related infection occurred in 9% (six of 67 cat

66 catheter days, or an overall cost per major catheter-related infections of up to $4,400.

67 These differences remained after excluding catheter-related infections (p = 0.0042) and secondary b

68 and bacteremia catheter-related infection as catheter-related infection plus a positive peripheral bl

69 In phase 2, the catheter-related infection rate was 2% (one positive of

70 enous catheters in patients at high risk for catheter-related infections reduces the incidence of CR-

71 nged for site inflammation had a 46% rate of catheter-related infection, significantly higher than fo

72 a) To reduce the rate of catheter-related infection, using improved skin preparat

73 Overall cost of major catheter-related infection was $24,090/episode.

74 Median direct cost of major catheter-related infection was $792.

75 Estimated added length of stay due to major catheter-related infection was 11 days (95% confidence i

76 In phase 3, the overall rate of catheter-related infection was 8.6%, significantly (p =

77 Catheter-related infection was considered the mechanism

78 tip culture (>/=10 colony-forming units/mL), catheter-related infection was defined by the previous c

79 Phase 2: The rate of catheter-related infection was determined for a trial gr

80 stay in the intensive care unit due to major catheter-related infection was estimated using the disab

81 was measured, and surveillance for vascular catheter-related infection was performed.

82 The rate of catheter-related infection was significantly (p = .0002)

83 Catheter related infections were ruled out.

84 Catheter-related infections were recorded in nine (5.8%)

85 In both groups, dialysis catheter-related infections were the most common infecti

86 In both groups, dialysis catheter-related infections were the most common infecti

87 igon catheter did not reduce colonization or catheter-related infections when compared with the stand

88 sibility of TB due to nosocomially acquired, catheter-related infections with M. bovis-BCG in patient

89 ion and analyse the different definitions of catheter-related infections, with an overview of their p