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 s comparable to those with surgically placed central catheters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection preven

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

11 Central catheter-associated bloodstream infection rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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