A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports.

American journal of surgery

Volumn 188, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 722-727

  Carlo, John T ^a   Lamont, Jeffrey P ^a   McCarty, Todd M ^a   Livingston, Sheryl ^a   Kuhn, Joseph A ^a  

^a BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFUSION PUMP; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR PATENCY; VEIN THROMBOSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CATHETERIZATION, CENTRAL VENOUS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; EQUIPMENT SAFETY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFUSION PUMPS, IMPLANTABLE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VASCULAR PATENCY; VENOUS THROMBOSIS;

EID: 16644403169     PISSN: 00029610     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.041     Document Type: Article

References (0)