Achieving and maintaining venous access for home parenteral nutrition

Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 285-289

  Forbes, Alastair ^a  

^a ST MARK S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Catheter infection; Central catheter; Home parenteral nutrition; Thrombosis; Total parenteral nutrition

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT;

CATHETER INFECTION; CENTRAL VEIN; HUMAN; INTESTINE TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MORBIDITY; PARENTERAL NUTRITION; PATIENT ATTITUDE; REVIEW;

EID: 17844385566     PISSN: 13631950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mco.0000165007.47073.5e     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Horattas MC, Trupiano J, Hopkins S, et al. Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. World J Gastroenterol 2004; 10:2419-2422. A useful comparative survey, but the absence of Broviac lines in the series limits its generalizability.
2. Cowl CT, Weinstock JV, Al-Jurf A, et al. Complications and cost associated with parenteral nutrition delivered to hospitalised patients through either subclavian or peripherally-inserted central catheters. Clin Nutr 2000; 19:237-243.
3. Chlebicki MP, Teo EK. Review of peripherally inserted central catheters in the Singapore acute-care hospital. Singapore Med J 2003; 44:531-535. A useful modest clinical study.
4. Correia MI, Guimaraes J, de Mattos LC, et al. Peripheral parenteral nutrition: an option for patients with an indication for short-term parenteral nutrition. Nutr Hosp 2004; 9:14-18.
5. Anderson AD, Palmer D, McFie J. Peripheral parenteral nutrition. Br J Surg 2003; 90:1048-1054.
6. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1123-1133. An excellent review article - thoroughly recommended.
7. Miyamoto N, Saitoh H, Takamura A, et al. Percutaneous transhepatic central venous port implantation via the middle hepatic vein: a case report. Nippon Acta Radiol 2002; 62:832-833.
8. Johnson D, Bodenham A. Provision of long-term venous access procedures by UK anaesthetists: a postal survey. Anaesthesia 2004; 59:770-774.
9. Dimick JB, Swoboda S, Talamini MA, et al. Risk of colonization of central venous catheters: catheters for total patenteral nutrition vs other catheters. Am J Crit Care 2003; 12:328-335. An interesting retrospective study in which careful line care produced better results for intravenous nutrition than for 'all-comers' use of central lines.
10. Kuwahara T, Asanami S, Kubo S. Experimental infusion phlebitis: tolerance osmolality of peripheral venous endothelial cells. Nutrition 1998; 14:496-501.
11. Alonso-Echanove J, Edwards JR, Richards MJ, et al. Effect of nurse staffing and antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters on the risk for blood-stream infections in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:916-925. A useful paper favouring the use of such catheters especially in intravenous nutrition.
12. Dewachter P, Mouton-Faivre C, Mertes P-M. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2684-2686.
13. Bozzetti F, Mariani L, Bertinet DB, et al. Central venous catheter complications in 447 patients on home parenteral nutrition: an analysis of over 100,000 catheter days. Clin Nutr 2002; 21:475-485.
14. Santarpia L, Pasanisi F, Alfonsi L, et al. Prevention and treatment of implanted central venous catheter (CVC)-related sepsis: a report after six years of home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Clin Nutr 2002; 21:207-211.
15. Smith CE, Curtas S, Werkowitch M, et al. Home parenteral nutrition: does affiliation with a national support and educational organization improve patient outcomes? J Parenter Enter Nutr 2002; 26:159-163.
16. Smith CE, Curtas S, Kleinbeck SV, et al. Clinical trial of interactive and videotaped educational interventions reduce infection, reactive depression, and rehospitalizations for sepsis in patients on home parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enter Nutr 2003; 27:137-145. Another good paper from this group favouring better patient education and support before and during HPN.
17. Lehoux P, Saint-Arnaud J, Richard L. The use of technology at home: what patient manuals say and sell vs. what patients face and fear. Sociol Health Illness 2004; 26:617-644.
18. Lin C, Lin MT, Hsieh DY, et al. Microbiology difference between colonized catheters and catheter-related bloodstream infections. Hepato-Gastroenterol 2003; 50:1821-1824. A validation of widely held clinical impressions.
19. Teubner A, Scott NA, Anderson ID, et al. Is endoluminal brushing of sluggish or blocked central venous catheters in patients on long term home parenteral nutrition effective? [Abstract]. Clin Nutr 2004; 23:907.
20. Bong JJ, Kite P, Ammori BJ, et al. The use of a rapid in situ test in the detection of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: a prospective study. J Parenter Enter Nutr 2003; 27:146-150. If these good results can be replicated by other centres this will become a very valued technique, but there are still a few questions to be answered.
21. Metcalf SC, Chambers ST, Pithie AD. Use of ethanol locks to prevent recurrent central line sepsis effective. J Infect 2004; 49:20-22.
22. Pironi L, Paganelli F, Labate AM, et al. Safety and efficacy of home parenteral nutrition for chronic intestinal failure: a 16-year experience at a single centre. Dig Liver Dis 2003; 35:314-324. A valuable retrospective muiticentre study from some of the busiest centres in Europe.
23. Schalamon J, Mayr JM, Hollwarth ME. Mortality and economics in short bowel syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 17:931-942.