1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Risk factors of infection of totally implantable venous access port: A retrospective study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Infection is the most frequent complication associated with the use of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). This retrospective study was conducted to determine the risk factors affecting TIVAP-related infection.

          Methods:

          A total of 1406 patients implanted with TIVAP at our center were included in this retrospective study. Incidence of perioperative infection, patient characteristics and bacteriologic data were retrieved and analyzed. Univariable analyses and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors.

          Results:

          Overall, 72 (5.1%) patients had perioperative infection, and TIVAP was finally removed from 12 (0.85%) patients. There was significantly more hematologic malignancy in the infection group, compared to the non-infection group. Patients with chemotherapy and infection within 30 days before operation also had more infections. There were more inpatients in the infection group than in the non-infection group. The rate of hematoma was higher in the infected patients. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that hematoma (OR 5.695, p < 0.001), preoperative hospital stay (⩾14d) (OR 2.945, p < 0.001), history of chemotherapy (OR 2.628, p = 0.002), history of infection (within 30 days) (OR 4.325, p < 0.001) were independent risk factor for infection.

          Conclusions:

          This study demonstrated that hematoma, preoperative hospital stay (⩾14d), history of chemotherapy and history of infection (within 30 days) are independent risk factor for all patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access: 2019 Update

          The National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) has provided evidence-based guidelines for hemodialysis vascular access since 1996. Since the last update in 2006, there has been a great accumulation of new evidence and sophistication in the guidelines process. The 2019 update to the KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Vascular Access is a comprehensive document intended to assist multidisciplinary practitioners care for chronic kidney disease patients and their vascular access. New topics include the end-stage kidney disease "Life-Plan" and related concepts, guidance on vascular access choice, new targets for arteriovenous access (fistulas and grafts) and central venous catheters, management of specific complications, and renewed approaches to some older topics. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence was independently conducted by using a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and interpretation and application followed the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks. As applicable, each guideline statement is accompanied by rationale/background information, a detailed justification, monitoring and evaluation guidance, implementation considerations, special discussions, and recommendations for future research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Immunosuppressive CD14+HLA-DR(low)/- monocytes in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

              Immunosuppression is a known risk factor for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), yet mechanisms of tumor-associated immunosuppression remain to be fully characterized. We examined the immunophenotype of 40 NHL patients and 27 age-matched healthy volunteers to better understand systemic immune suppression. NHL peripheral blood mononuclear cells had significantly decreased interferon-γ production and proliferation. This suppression was not the result of regulatory T cells, interleukin-6 or interleukin-10, as these factors were not different between NHL and healthy volunteers (controls). We were able to restore T-cell proliferation by removing NHL monocytes, suggesting that these monocytes are suppressive. This suppression was mediated in part through arginine metabolism as exogenous arginine supplementation partially overcame monocytes' suppression of T-cell proliferation in vitro and NHL patients had elevated arginase I in their plasma. NHL monocytes had impaired STAT1 phosphorylation and interferon-α production to CpG stimulation and a dendritic cell differentiation deficiency. Further studies demonstrated that monocytes from NHL patients had decreased HLA-DR and Tumor necrosis factor-α receptor II (CD120b) expression compared with controls (CD14(+)HLA-DR(low/-)CD120b(low)). Patients with increased ratios of CD14(+)HLA-DR(low/-) monocytes had more aggressive disease and suppressed immune functions. In summary, we report that CD14(+)HLA-DR(low/-) monocytes are a major and multifactorial contributor to systemic immunosuppression in NHL.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                The Journal of Vascular Access
                J Vasc Access
                SAGE Publications
                1129-7298
                1724-6032
                April 07 2022
                : 112972982210852
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
                [2 ]Center of Intervention Department, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
                Article
                10.1177/11297298221085230
                02aa55ad-b246-413d-87e6-b2e11937db31
                © 2022

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article