4.7 Article

Locking of tunneled hemodialysis catheters with gentamicin and heparin

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 801-805

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00806.x

关键词

hemodialysis; gentamicin locking; catheter-related infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Catheter-related infection (CRI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis. Antibiotic locking of these catheters has been shown to increase both the success of systemic antibiotic treatment in line sepsis, and to reduce the incidence of sepsis. We have studied the use of gentamicin locking of catheters (in combination with standard heparin rather than previously reported citrate) to reduce CRI rates. Furthermore, we have investigated the effects of this strategy on epoetin requirements and vascular access function. Methods. Fifty patients were studied. Patients were randomized to catheter-restricted filling with either standard heparin (5000 IU/mL) alone, or gentamicin and heparin (5 mg/mL). Epoetin requirements and hemoglobin response were monitored over the study period. Results. The gentamicin-locked group suffered only one infective episode (0.3/1000 catheter days) compared to 10 episodes in six patients in the heparin alone group (4/1000 catheter days, P = 0.02). The isolated organisms were equally split between Staphylococcal species and coliforms. There were no statistically significant differences in delivered dialysis dose (Kt/V) or Q(A) between the two groups. Use of antibiotic locking was associated with both a higher mean hemoglobin (10.1 +/- 0.14 g/dL vs. 9.2 +/- 0.17 g/dL in the heparin group, P = 0.003) and a lower mean epoetin dose (9000 +/- 734 IU/week vs. 10790 +/- 615 IU/week in the heparin group, P = 0.04). Conclusion. The practice of locking newly inserted tunneled central venous catheters with gentamicin and heparin is an effective strategy to reduce line sepsis rates, and is associated with beneficial effects on epoetin requirements.

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

4.7
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