根据左心室辅助装置植入者的干线定位确定干线感染。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL International Journal of Artificial Organs Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1177/03913988231220268
Volker Lauenroth, Armin Zittermann, Stefan Lucke, Jan F Gummert, Michiel Morshuis
{"title":"根据左心室辅助装置植入者的干线定位确定干线感染。","authors":"Volker Lauenroth, Armin Zittermann, Stefan Lucke, Jan F Gummert, Michiel Morshuis","doi":"10.1177/03913988231220268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted a prospective, open-labeled, clinical trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of argon cold plasma application and two different types of driveline positioning for the prevention of driveline infection (DLI) in 80 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. Here, we present the results of intracorporeal loop positioning (<i>n</i> = 40) versus no intracorporeal loop positioning (<i>n</i> = 40). Patients were followed up for 1 year. According to the Driveline Expert STagINg and carE grading (DESTINE) system, a DLI was considered in case of a stage 2 or higher graded infection. During follow-up, 29 (36%) patients experienced a DLI, 16 in the group with intracorporeal loop positioning and 13 in the group with no intracorporeal loop positioning. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from DLI showed no statistically significant difference between study groups during follow-up (<i>p</i> = 0.33). In detail, 30-day freedom from DLI was for the groups with and without intracorporeal loop positioning 92 and 92%, respectively, and 1-year freedom from DLI was 51 and 62%, respectively. In conclusion, this controlled clinical trial was unable to show a statistically significant difference in freedom from DLI during one year of follow-up in groups with or without intracorporeal loop positioning. However, larger trials have to confirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":13932,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Artificial Organs","volume":" ","pages":"118-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Driveline infection according to driveline positioning in left ventricular assist device implant recipients.\",\"authors\":\"Volker Lauenroth, Armin Zittermann, Stefan Lucke, Jan F Gummert, Michiel Morshuis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03913988231220268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We conducted a prospective, open-labeled, clinical trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of argon cold plasma application and two different types of driveline positioning for the prevention of driveline infection (DLI) in 80 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. Here, we present the results of intracorporeal loop positioning (<i>n</i> = 40) versus no intracorporeal loop positioning (<i>n</i> = 40). Patients were followed up for 1 year. According to the Driveline Expert STagINg and carE grading (DESTINE) system, a DLI was considered in case of a stage 2 or higher graded infection. During follow-up, 29 (36%) patients experienced a DLI, 16 in the group with intracorporeal loop positioning and 13 in the group with no intracorporeal loop positioning. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from DLI showed no statistically significant difference between study groups during follow-up (<i>p</i> = 0.33). In detail, 30-day freedom from DLI was for the groups with and without intracorporeal loop positioning 92 and 92%, respectively, and 1-year freedom from DLI was 51 and 62%, respectively. In conclusion, this controlled clinical trial was unable to show a statistically significant difference in freedom from DLI during one year of follow-up in groups with or without intracorporeal loop positioning. However, larger trials have to confirm these results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Artificial Organs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"118-121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Artificial Organs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988231220268\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Artificial Organs","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988231220268","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们对 80 名植入左心室辅助装置(LVAD)的患者进行了一项前瞻性、开放标签临床试验,试验采用两两因子设计,分别应用氩冷等离子体和两种不同类型的驱动管定位来预防驱动管感染(DLI)。在此,我们介绍了体外循环定位(40 例)与无体外循环定位(40 例)的对比结果。对患者进行了为期一年的随访。根据Driveline专家STagINg和carE分级(DESTINE)系统,如果出现2期或更高分级的感染,则考虑进行DLI。在随访期间,29 名(36%)患者出现了 DLI,其中 16 名患者进行了体外循环定位,13 名患者未进行体外循环定位。卡普兰-梅耶估计值显示,在随访期间,各研究组之间免于 DLI 的差异无统计学意义(p = 0.33)。具体而言,采用体腔内循环定位和未采用体腔内循环定位的研究组 30 天无 DLI 的比例分别为 92% 和 92%,1 年无 DLI 的比例分别为 51% 和 62%。总之,在这项临床对照试验中,采用体外循环定位和未采用体外循环定位的组别在随访一年期间免于 DLI 的比例差异并不明显。不过,还需要更大规模的试验来证实这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Driveline infection according to driveline positioning in left ventricular assist device implant recipients.

We conducted a prospective, open-labeled, clinical trial, with a two-by-two factorial design, of argon cold plasma application and two different types of driveline positioning for the prevention of driveline infection (DLI) in 80 patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. Here, we present the results of intracorporeal loop positioning (n = 40) versus no intracorporeal loop positioning (n = 40). Patients were followed up for 1 year. According to the Driveline Expert STagINg and carE grading (DESTINE) system, a DLI was considered in case of a stage 2 or higher graded infection. During follow-up, 29 (36%) patients experienced a DLI, 16 in the group with intracorporeal loop positioning and 13 in the group with no intracorporeal loop positioning. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from DLI showed no statistically significant difference between study groups during follow-up (p = 0.33). In detail, 30-day freedom from DLI was for the groups with and without intracorporeal loop positioning 92 and 92%, respectively, and 1-year freedom from DLI was 51 and 62%, respectively. In conclusion, this controlled clinical trial was unable to show a statistically significant difference in freedom from DLI during one year of follow-up in groups with or without intracorporeal loop positioning. However, larger trials have to confirm these results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Artificial Organs
International Journal of Artificial Organs 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
92
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Artificial Organs (IJAO) publishes peer-reviewed research and clinical, experimental and theoretical, contributions to the field of artificial, bioartificial and tissue-engineered organs. The mission of the IJAO is to foster the development and optimization of artificial, bioartificial and tissue-engineered organs, for implantation or use in procedures, to treat functional deficits of all human tissues and organs.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing ventricular assist device rotor design parameters through computational fluid dynamics and design of experiments. The Donnan equilibrium is still valid in high-volume HDF. Absolute blood volume and long-term survival in chronic hemodialysis patients. Analysis of fluid forces impacting on the impeller of a mixed flow blood pump with computational fluid dynamics. Risk factors for acute kidney injury in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1