3.9 Article

Ethanol-lock technique for persistent bacteremia of long-term intravascular devices in pediatric patients

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 160, 期 10, 页码 1049-1053

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.160.10.1049

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To use the ethanol-lock technique (in conjunction with systemic antibiotics) to salvage central lines from removal and to prevent persistence of catheter-related infections among pediatric patients with longterm intravascular devices. Design: Medical records of patients treated with ethanol locks were retrospectively reviewed from June 1, 2004, through June 22, 2005. Setting: Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif, a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Patients: Forty children with diverse underlying disorders were treated for 51 catheter-related infections using the Childrens Hospital Los Angeles ethanol-lock technique. Interventions: Eligible infected central lines were instilled with a dose volume of 0.8 to 1.4 mL of 70% ethanol into the catheter lumen during 12 to 24 hours and then withdrawn. The volume of ethanol used was based on the type of intravascular device. Main Outcome Measures: Clearance of infection and incidence of recurrence. Results: Of the 51 ethanol-lock treatments in 40 children, no catheters were removed because of persistent infection. Eighty-eight percent (45/51) of the treated episodes cleared without recurrence (defined as a relapse within 30 days with the same pathogen). Twelve (75%) of 16 polymicrobial isolates and 33 (94%) of 35 monomicrobial isolates were successfully treated. There were no adverse reactions or adverse effects reported. Conclusion: This retrospective study supports the use of the ethanol-lock technique in conjunction with systemic antibiotics as an effective and safe method to retain the use of a previously infected central venous catheter, decrease the need for line removal, and eradicate persistent pathogens in catheter-related infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据