4.3 Article

Central venous access devices in haemophilia

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 134-146

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2516.2003.00840.x

关键词

haemophilia; infection; meta-analysis; removal; thrombosis; venous access devices

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Central venous access devices (CVADs) can facilitate repeated and/or urgent administration of coagulation factors in haemophilic patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of complication rates and risk factors for poor outcome. Forty-eight studies with a total of 2704 patients and 2973 CVADs were included. The primary indications for CVADs were immune tolerance therapy (34.9% of patients), difficult venous access (31.8%) and prophylaxis (29.1%). Fully implanted CVADs were employed in 77.4% of cases and external CVADs in 22.6%. A total of 1190 infections were reported, and the pooled incidence of infection was 0.66 per 1000 CVAD days [confidence interval (CI), 0.44-0.97 per 1000 CVAD days]. Among patients developing infection, the pooled time to first infection was 295 days (CI, 181-479 days). Presence of inhibitors was an independent risk factor for infection with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.67 (CI, 1.15-2.43). Infection was less likely in patients >6 years of age (IRR, 0.46; CI, 0.27-0.79) and recipients of fully implanted CVADs (IRR, 0.31; CI, 0.12-0.86). Available information on thrombosis was limited, with only 55 cases being reported. Eventually, 31.3% of CVADs were removed, and infection was the reason for removal in 69.9% of cases and thrombosis in 4.1%. The pooled time period CVADs remained indwelling prior to removal or the expiration of the study observation period was 578 days per CVAD (CI, 456-733 days per CVAD). CVADs can confer major benefits in patients with haemophilia requiring long-term venous access, and serious complications are rare.

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

4.3
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