化疗癌症患者置入隧道式和非隧道式外周置入中心导管的并发症:一项荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847
Jiana Hong, Xiaodan Mao
{"title":"化疗癌症患者置入隧道式和非隧道式外周置入中心导管的并发症:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Jiana Hong, Xiaodan Mao","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) have potential to reduce complications compared to non-tunneled PICC in previous studies. Which is better is debatable. Thus, the aim to compare the effect of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library database, and CNKI were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was calculated to assess the complications of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy using random- or fixed-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 articles were retrieved. Meta-analysis showed that tunneled PICC significantly decreased the risk of wound oozing (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.41), infection risk (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.85), thrombosis risk (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44), phlebitis risk (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13-0.40), and catheter dislodgement risk (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50) compared to non-tunneled PICC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The subcutaneous tunneling technology has advantages over normal technique in decreasing PICC-related complications for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024522862).</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1469847"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11518809/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications of tunneled and non-tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jiana Hong, Xiaodan Mao\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) have potential to reduce complications compared to non-tunneled PICC in previous studies. Which is better is debatable. Thus, the aim to compare the effect of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library database, and CNKI were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was calculated to assess the complications of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy using random- or fixed-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12 articles were retrieved. Meta-analysis showed that tunneled PICC significantly decreased the risk of wound oozing (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.41), infection risk (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.85), thrombosis risk (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44), phlebitis risk (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13-0.40), and catheter dislodgement risk (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50) compared to non-tunneled PICC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The subcutaneous tunneling technology has advantages over normal technique in decreasing PICC-related complications for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024522862).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1469847\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11518809/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1469847","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在以往的研究中,隧道式外周置入中心导管(PICC)与非隧道式 PICC 相比,有可能减少并发症。孰优孰劣尚存争议。因此,本文旨在比较隧道式和非隧道式 PICC 对接受化疗的癌症患者的影响:方法:检索了从开始到 2024 年 3 月 15 日的 Embase、PubMed、Cochrane Library 数据库和 CNKI。采用随机或固定效应模型计算出患病率比(ORs)及95%置信区间(95% CIs),以评估接受化疗的癌症患者使用隧道式和非隧道式PICC的并发症:结果:共检索到 12 篇文章。Meta 分析显示,隧道式 PICC 可显著降低伤口渗液风险(OR:0.29,95% CI:0.20-0.41)、感染风险(OR:0.41,95% CI:0.20-0.85)、血栓风险(OR:0.26,95% CI:0.15-0.44)、静脉炎风险(OR:0.23,95% CI:0.13-0.40)、导管脱落风险(OR:0.33,95% CI:0.22-0.50):与普通技术相比,皮下隧道技术在减少接受化疗的癌症患者的 PICC 相关并发症方面具有优势:系统综述注册:PROCROPERO (CRD42024522862)。
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
Complications of tunneled and non-tunneled peripherally inserted central catheter placement in chemotherapy-treated cancer patients: a meta-analysis.

Background: Tunneled peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) have potential to reduce complications compared to non-tunneled PICC in previous studies. Which is better is debatable. Thus, the aim to compare the effect of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Methods: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library database, and CNKI were searched from inception to March 15, 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was calculated to assess the complications of tunneled and non-tunneled PICC for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy using random- or fixed-effects models.

Results: A total of 12 articles were retrieved. Meta-analysis showed that tunneled PICC significantly decreased the risk of wound oozing (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20-0.41), infection risk (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20-0.85), thrombosis risk (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44), phlebitis risk (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13-0.40), and catheter dislodgement risk (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.50) compared to non-tunneled PICC.

Conclusions: The subcutaneous tunneling technology has advantages over normal technique in decreasing PICC-related complications for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42024522862).

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
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
期刊最新文献
Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Open laminectomy vs. minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits. Compare three deep learning-based artificial intelligence models for classification of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter diagnostic study. Ureteroinguinal hernia: an added advantage for laparoscopy in the management of inguinal hernia-a case report.
×
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