These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Experience of anesthesiologists with percutaneous nonangiographic venous access.
    Author: Chen PT, Sung CS, Wang CC, Chan KH, Chang WK, Hsu WH.
    Journal: J Clin Anesth; 2007 Dec; 19(8):609-15. PubMed ID: 18083475.
    Abstract:
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare percutaneous nonangiographic insertion of a venous access device with a standard surgical cutdown insertion technique. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, randomized study. SETTING: Operating room and anesthesia induction room of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 100 consecutive oncology patients scheduled for intravenous chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to two groups: (1) The percutaneous group received implantation through the internal jugular vein by experienced anesthesiologists, whereas (2) the surgical group received venous cutdown insertion through the cephalic or subclavian vein by surgeons (n = 50 for each group). MEASUREMENTS: Duration of procedure, long-term device function, complications such as hematoma formation, infection, hemothorax, pneumothorax, and patients' satisfaction with the placement procedure at two months of follow-up were all measured and recorded. MAIN RESULTS: The percutaneous technique was found to have several advantages, including reduced time for insertion and greater patient satisfaction with procedure. The percutaneously implanted devices also had fewer insertion-associated complications. CONCLUSION: The simplified, percutaneous, nonangiographic technique is as effective as the traditional venous cutdown technique and can be safely done by surgeons as well as by experienced physicians who are not surgeons.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]