We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Central venous thrombosis and perioperative vascular access in adult intestinal transplantation.
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2012 May
BACKGROUND: Venous access is crucial in intestinal transplantation, but a thrombosed venous system may prevent the use of central veins of the upper body. The incidence of venous thrombosis and the necessity to perform alternative vascular access (AVA) in intestinal transplant recipients have not been fully investigated.
METHODS: Records of adult patients who underwent intestinal transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2009, were reviewed. Contrast venography was performed as pre-transplantation screening. Vascular accesses at the transplantation were categorized as I (percutaneous line via the upper body veins), II (percutaneous line via the lower body veins), and III (vascular accesses secured surgically, with interventional radiology, or using non-venous sites). Categories II and III were defined as AVA. Risk factors for central venous thrombosis and those for requiring AVA were analysed, respectively.
RESULTS: Among 173 patients, central venous obstruction or stenosis (<50% of normal diameter) was found in 82% (141 patients). AVA was required in 4.6% (eight patients: four in each category II and III). Large-bore infusion lines were placed via the femoral arteries in all category III patients without complications. Existing inferior vena cava filter and hypercoagulable states were identified as the risk factors for the use of AVA, but not for central venous thrombosis. Outcomes of patients who underwent AVA were similar to those of patients without AVA.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adult patients undergoing intestinal transplantation had at least one central venous stenosis or obstruction. The recipient outcomes were comparable when either standard vascular access or AVA was used for transplantation.
METHODS: Records of adult patients who underwent intestinal transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2009, were reviewed. Contrast venography was performed as pre-transplantation screening. Vascular accesses at the transplantation were categorized as I (percutaneous line via the upper body veins), II (percutaneous line via the lower body veins), and III (vascular accesses secured surgically, with interventional radiology, or using non-venous sites). Categories II and III were defined as AVA. Risk factors for central venous thrombosis and those for requiring AVA were analysed, respectively.
RESULTS: Among 173 patients, central venous obstruction or stenosis (<50% of normal diameter) was found in 82% (141 patients). AVA was required in 4.6% (eight patients: four in each category II and III). Large-bore infusion lines were placed via the femoral arteries in all category III patients without complications. Existing inferior vena cava filter and hypercoagulable states were identified as the risk factors for the use of AVA, but not for central venous thrombosis. Outcomes of patients who underwent AVA were similar to those of patients without AVA.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of adult patients undergoing intestinal transplantation had at least one central venous stenosis or obstruction. The recipient outcomes were comparable when either standard vascular access or AVA was used for transplantation.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app