4.3 Article

Complications of central venous access devices in paediatric haemophilia patients

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 50-56

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2516.2003.00692.x

关键词

central venous access device; complications; haemophilia; infection; paediatrics; prophylaxis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a retrospective survey of our experience with central venous access devices (CVADs) implanted in children with haemophilia seen at the Vanderbilt Hemostasis-Thrombosis Clinic from 1986 to 2000. Following discussion with parents on the merits and risks associated with the use of CVADs for immune tolerance induction or factor prophylaxis, catheters were inserted under sterile technique in the operating room. One nurse provided demonstration and teaching about catheter care and access. Thirty central venous catheters were inserted in 22 children. Our survey revealed that the two most common complications associated with central venous catheters were bacteraemia and thrombosis. We found a sepsis rate of 0.30/1000 catheter-days or one episode of bacteraemia for every 3346 days of catheter use. The thrombosis rate of our cohort was 0.13/1000 catheter-days or one episode of thrombosis for every 7529 days of catheter use. Uncomplicated venous access is essential in children with severe haemophilia who require prophylaxis or immune tolerance induction. While infection was the most common complication observed in our series, we experienced a lower overall infection rate than several reported series. Catheter thrombosis and subsequent obstruction may occur as a result of intraluminal fibrin deposits. We conclude that the use of implantable central venous catheters is an effective method for accessing children with haemophilia. We accept that the benefits of CVADs in the treatment of paediatric haemophilia patients outweigh the previously documented risks. Future prospective studies should be designed to define all associated risks and to determine effective strategies to reduce them.

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