ArticleAnnals of intensive care2018
Removal of totally implanted venous access ports for suspected infection in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing infection in totally implantable venous access ports: An ex vivo study on bacterial transfer and the Forsvall Port needle design.The journal of vascular access · 2026Article
- Is There a Relationship Between Frequency of Port-Care Maintenance and Related Complications in Patients With Cancer?JCO oncology practice · 2022Article
- The use of ICU resources in CAR-T cell recipients: a hospital-wide study.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
- Article
- Association of immediate reinsertion of new catheters with subsequent mortality among patients with suspected catheter infection: a cohort study.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
- Bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: an expert statement.Intensive care medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile no data support this practice, international guidelines recommend the removal of totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs) in patients with suspicion of TIVAP-related bloodstream infection admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) for a life-threatening sepsis.
methodsDuring this multicenter, retrospective and observational study, we included all patients admitted in five ICU for a life-threatening sepsis in whom a TIVAP was removed between January 2012 and December 2014. We aimed (1) at determining the proportion of confirmed TIVAP-related infections and (2) at assessing short- and long-term survival of patients with and without TIVAP-related infections.
resultsOne hundred and fifty-one patients (58 ± 14 years, 62% males) were included between 2012 and 2014. TIVAP-related infections were confirmed in 68 patients (45%). Demographic characteristics were similar between patients with and without TIVAP-related infections. SOFA score on admission per point increase [odd ratio (OR), 0.86 interval confidence (IC) 95% (0.8-0.9), p < 0.01] and local signs of infection [OR 4.0, IC 95% (1.1-15.6), p = 0.04] were significantly associated with TIVAP-related infection. Patients with TIVAP-related infection had lower ICU and 6-month mortality as compared to their counterparts (9 vs. 40%, respectively, p < 0.01; and 50 vs. 66%, respectively, p = 0.04). TIVAP-related infection was significantly associated with ICU survival [OR 0.2, IC 95% (0.05-0.5), p < 0.01].
conclusionsTIVAP-related infection was confirmed in nearly one out of two cases of life-threatening sepsis in patients in whom it has been removed. TIVAP-related infection was associated with a good prognosis, as compared to patients with other causes of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.