ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Usefulness of central venous catheter replacement with a guidewire in patients with intestinal failure: a single-center study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with intestinal failure (IF) require long-term parenteral nutrition using central venous catheters (CVCs), which often require replacement. We adopted a less fallible guidewire replacement (GWR) method and verified its effectiveness and validity.
methodsWe enrolled 108 cases that underwent a CVC replacement with "GWR" method with IF at our department between 2013 and 2023. We retrospectively reviewed patients' clinical details with tunneled CVC (Hickman/Broviac catheter). For the analysis, we compared for the same time period the catheter exchange method "Primary placement"; newly inserted catheter by venipuncture.
resultsThe success rate of catheter replacement using GWR was 94.4%. There were six unsuccessful cases. A log-rank test showed no significant difference in catheter survival between primary placement and the GWR, and the time to first infection was significantly longer in the GWR (p = 0.001). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two methods until the first infection, when the exchange indication was limited to infections. In the same way, when the indication was restricted to catheter-related bloodstream infection, there was no significant difference in catheter survival between the two approaches.
conclusionOur GWR procedure was easy to perform and stable, with a high success rate and almost no complications. Moreover, using a guidewire did not increase the frequency of catheter replacement and the infection rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39145817What 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.