ライフサイエンスコーパス: central venous catheter

1 129,288 hospital discharges had evidence of central venous catheter.

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

3 co-oximetry values of blood withdrawn from a central venous catheter.

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

5 ive dogs by injecting methacholine through a central venous catheter.

6 younger with intestinal failure requiring a central venous catheter.

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

8 All had permanent central venous catheters.

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

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

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

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

13 om the chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine central venous catheters.

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

15 penditures compared with synthetic grafts or central venous catheters.

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

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

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

19 DVT associated with the placement of femoral central venous catheters.

20 he most frequent complications of indwelling central venous catheters.

21 ders in patients with cancer with indwelling central venous catheters.

22 of children with cancer who have indwelling central venous catheters.

23 mbolic disorders in patients with indwelling central venous catheters.

24 ions in patients with cancer with indwelling central venous catheters.

25 nfections compared with standard and heparin central venous catheters.

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

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

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

29 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 stream infections with positive simultaneous central venous catheter and peripheral vein blood cultur

50 me necessary for the blood cultures from the central venous catheter and the peripheral vein to becom

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 All had central venous catheters and an Acute Physiology and Chr

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

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

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

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

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

59 51% had undergone recent surgery, 73% had a central venous catheter, and 41% were receiving systemic

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

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

62 Central venous catheters are a leading source of nosocom

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

64 Central venous catheters are essential for the treatment

65 Although central venous catheters are extremely important in the

66 Central venous catheters are inserted earlier and more f

67 Impregnated central venous catheters are recommended for adults to r

68 Because indwelling central venous catheters are widely used, it is importan

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 Patients with central venous catheter-associated S. aureus bacteremia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84 nown whether cardiac pacemakers or permanent central venous catheters can also result in such artifac

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 ive care nurses proficient in all aspects of central venous catheter care.Two groups of patients were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100 Central venous catheter (CVC) thrombi result in signific

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

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

103 ication of pacemaker use, long-term use of a central venous catheter (CVC), or cancer.

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

105 initial management of 324 (6%) patients with central venous catheter (CVC)-associated UEDVT, 268 (5%)

106 vantages over arteriovenous grafts (AVG) and central venous catheters (CVC), but whether AVF are asso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 ckman and Broviac versus totally implantable central venous catheter) did not influence short-term er

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

118 eam infection associated with multiple-lumen central venous catheters, endoluminal brushing was posit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

127 One hundred and twenty-five central venous catheters from patients with suspected ca

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

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

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

131 Pressure-injectable central venous catheters had significantly greater rates

132 Although antimicrobial coating of short-term central venous catheters has been demonstrated to protec

133 Central venous catheters have become a mainstay in the c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

144 Long-term nontunneled central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline an

145 atients with CRBI with a totally implantable central venous catheter in place are more likely to deve

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 n, we prospectively studied the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization at th

153 nsive care unit population, the incidence of central venous catheter infection and colonization is lo

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 Early central venous catheter insertion increased from 5.7% (9

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

173 Earlier central venous catheter insertion may require systematic

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

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

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

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

178 were obtained from health care worker hands, central venous catheter insertion sites, and medical dev

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 es during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal,

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

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

189 adiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion.

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

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

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

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

194 Central venous catheter insertions may lead to preventab

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

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

197 .3% pneumothorax with jugular and subclavian central venous catheter insertions, respectively.

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

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

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

201 However, inability to obtain samples via central venous catheters is a major drawback of the diff

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

203 When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultr

204 Antimicrobial impregnation of long-term central venous catheters may help obviate the need for t

205 Using a rat central venous catheter model, we characterized in vivo

206 41; 95% CI, 2.14-9.09), and discharge with a central venous catheter (mOR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.13-4.99) o

207 All lumens of multiple-lumen central venous catheters must be sampled to ensure maxim

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

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

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

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

212 pregnation to that of tunneling of long-term central venous catheters on the rates of catheter coloni

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

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

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

216 f <4500 or >20000, P = 0.003), presence of a central venous catheter (OR 2.0, P = 0.0002), and presen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

227 Central venous catheter placement is a common procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

235 complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position.

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

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

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

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

240 nly performed procedures (arterial catheter, central venous catheter, pulmonary artery catheter, or p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 Central venous catheter-related infections are a signifi

251 Four cases of central venous catheter-related Methylobacterium radioto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

259 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

260 Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters significantly reduced the risk

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

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

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

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

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

266 tients were randomized to receive a silicone central venous catheter that was either impregnated with

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

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

269 Central venous catheter thrombosis can cause venous obst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

280 eral-blood cultures, quantitative culture of central venous catheter vs. peripheral blood, and the en

281 ared: the differential time to positivity of central venous catheter vs. peripheral-blood cultures, q

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

283 A special central venous catheter was developed to measure electri

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

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

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

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

288 Arterial and central venous catheters were inserted and IV rocuronium

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

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

291 adication of bacteremia, totally implantable central venous catheters were significantly associated w

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

299 Central venous catheters with a median dwell time of 11

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