2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Maintaining patency in totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD): A time-to-event analysis of different lock irrigation intervals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
52
0
5

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
52
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…If the Huber needle is not correctly located in the reservoir, the paravenous administration of NS, in contrast to heparin, is not harmful. There is also a tendency to prolong the interval between intermittent accesses for TIVAD maintenance from monthly to every 6 to 8 weeks [ 24 , 25 ] and even longer time periods are used. More research is needed to provide scientifically underpinned answers regarding the best time period to renew a lock.…”
Section: Lockingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the Huber needle is not correctly located in the reservoir, the paravenous administration of NS, in contrast to heparin, is not harmful. There is also a tendency to prolong the interval between intermittent accesses for TIVAD maintenance from monthly to every 6 to 8 weeks [ 24 , 25 ] and even longer time periods are used. More research is needed to provide scientifically underpinned answers regarding the best time period to renew a lock.…”
Section: Lockingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the last decade, the attention of researchers has mainly been focused on identifying the best possible applicable solution for this procedure and on defining a correct execution technique. Several clinical studies published in the literature [2][3][4][5] and the latest international guidelines have established that, as far as non-dialysis catheters (NDCVA) are concerned, the standardized use of normal saline solution is to be preferred to anticoagulant solutions and, in particular, to heparinized saline solutions. In particular, the recent INS 2016 Standard of Practice and the Gruppo Accessi Venosi Centrali a Lungo Termine (GAVeCeLT) 2016 consensus of Italian experts have given clinical importance to this topic suggesting that normal saline solution is to be preferred in lieu of heparinized saline solution significant clinical relevance regarding the topic and suggest that normal saline solution is to be preferred in lieu of heparinized solutions, which, for the latest decades, have been considered a standard of practice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our review, we found that the complications of using saline solution and 50 and 100 U/ml of heparin to lock TIVAPs monthly were 6.23% (69/1108), 11.0% (56/509) and 2.96% (8/270), respectively (Table 4). Ignatov et al (2010) and Palese et al (2014) found that the total complication rates were 11.76% (2/17) and 5.0% (7/140) for locking TIVAPs with 250 and 500 U/ml of heparin every month, respectively. Hence, it still remains to be investigated whether it can replace higher dose heparin solution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%