ArticleJournal of pediatric surgery2023
Complications Associated with Subsequent Vascular Access in Pediatric ECMO Patients.
Article in Journal of pediatric surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFollowing ECMO decannulation, intensivists and surgeons must consider whether to reuse the cannulation site for central venous catheters (CVC) or seek remote access. This study investigates the risk of infectious complication associated with the reuse of peripheral ECMO cannulation sites for subsequent central venous access.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted for patients aged 0-18 years, who underwent peripheral ECMO cannulation between 2009 and 2021 at a single children's hospital.
resultsOf the 227 charts reviewed, after ECMO decannulation, 53 patients received a CVC at the same location, 25 received a CVC at a different location, 62 received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), and 87 had no subsequent vascular access placed within 30 days of decannulation. Patients with secondary access placed at the same site experienced 1 CLABSI, or 0.94 CLABSIs per 1000 line days. Patients with PICC lines after ECMO decannulation had 1 CLABSI, or 0.43 CLABSIs per 1000 line days. In comparison, the institution's hospital-wide CLABSI rate was 1.46 per 1000 line days during this same period. Although the rate of CLABSI among patients with secondary access at the site of decannulation was higher than the rate among patients with PICC lines (p = 0.79) it was lower than the institutional rate (p = 0.54), these differences did not rise to the level of statistical significance.
conclusionCompared with ECMO patients with subsequent CVCs placed at an alternative access site or via PICC after decannulation, patients with contemporaneous CVC placement at the site of decannulation do not experience a significantly higher rate of CLABSIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective comparative study.
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.