4.7 Article

Prophylactic urokinase in the management of long-term venous access devices in children: A children's oncology group study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 2718-2723

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.019

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Infection and thrombosis are serious complications of long-term vascular access devices in children undergoing chemotherapy. Since routine fibrinolytic therapy may decrease these complications, the purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of an every-2-week administration of urokinase with standard heparin flushes in reducing the incidence of device-related infections and occlusions. Materials and Methods This study was a prospective, randomized phase III multicenter trial conducted by the Children's Cancer Group, in which patients with implantable ports or tunneled catheters received either urokinase or heparin every 2 weeks for 12 months. Study end points were time to first occlusion or time to first device-related infection. Results Five hundred seventy-seven patients from 29 institutions were enrolled, of whom 51% had external catheters and 49% had ports. Urokinase administration resulted in fewer occlusive events than heparin (23% v 31%; P = .02), a longer time to first occlusive event (log-rank analysis, P = .006), and a 1.6-fold difference in the rate of occlusive events (Poisson regression, P = .003). Similar results were noted when comparing ports and tunneled catheters. The urokinase group also had a 1.4-fold difference in the rate of infection (Poisson regression, P = .05) and longer time to first infection (log-rank, P = .07), but the difference was significant only in tunneled catheters. Conclusion Urokinase administration every 2 weeks significantly affects the rate of occlusive events in ports and tunneled catheters and of infectious events in external catheters compared with heparin administration. (C) 2004 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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