View clinical trials related to Catheters, Indwelling.
Filter by:Peripheral intravenous cannulas (PIVCs) are utilized in large scale in modern health care. Known complications due to a PIVC are phlebitis, thrombosis, bleeding, nerve damage and infection. PIVC-related infection causes morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. PIVC-related infections can and should be prevented. Indwell time is a known risk factor for PIVC-related infection. Another factor potentially influencing the risk of developing PIVC-related infection is what type of PIVC that is being used. Roughly there are two types of PIVCs. One with an open injection valve and another with a closed injection valve. The former being far more used in our hospital and the latter being suggested as lowering the risk of PIVC-related infection compared to the open one. The investigators aim with this study is to evaluate the incidence of PIVC-colonization in 300 patients at our 500-bed secondary level hospital in Sweden, as a first step in trying to understand what healthcare-providers can improve regarding prevention of PIVC-related infections.
Since the first placement of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) by Niederhuber et al in 1982 its application to provide long-term central venous access has dramatically increased. These systems have dramatically simplified the administration of chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition as well as the repetitive collection of blood samples. Initial retrospective studies have focused on the complications associated with different implantation techniques. Subsequently, major attention has been payed to the comparison of distinct types of TIVAPs. To date a variety of approved port systems are available. These devices can be either implanted using the Seldinger technique or by venous cut-down of the cephalic vein Despite the global use of these established implantation procedures prospective, randomized trials directly comparing these two approaches are still lacking. So, the choice, which technique to use is left to the surgeon's preference. The aim of this study is to directly compare the Seldinger technique versus cephalic vein cut down for placement of TIVAPs in respect of implantation success rate, operation time and perioperative morbidity.
This trial is for patients with a central venous catheter (a vascular access device) that is not functioning properly (unable to withdraw blood). The trial compares a new blood clot dissolving agent (alfimeprase) against the currently used treatment.
The Groshong and Groshong PICC catheters are popular venous access devices because they are maintained with only weekly saline flushes. In a recent study, however, we found an apparent decrease in the rate of withdrawal occlusion in Groshong catheters flushed weekly with heparinized saline. However, a randomized trial is necessary to confirm this impression. In the current study as many as 66 patients will be randomized to each of two treatment arms. The Groshong catheters of one group will be flushed with saline only and the other group with heparinized saline. A comparison will be made between the frequency with which urokinase is used in the two groups to treat withdrawal occlusion during the first three months of catheterization. Groshong catheters using saline flushes will be compared to Groshong catheters using heparinized saline flushes and Groshong PICC catheters using saline flushes will be compared to Groshong PICC catheters using heparinized saline flushes. Data will be analyzed using Fisher's exact test.