'%3e%3cline%20id='Line_151'%20data-name='Line%20151'%20x2='29.522'%20transform='translate(22.5%2022.368)'%20fill='none'%20stroke='%23fff'%20stroke-linecap='round'%20stroke-width='4'/%3e%3cline%20id='Line_152'%20data-name='Line%20152'%20x2='29.522'%20transform='translate(22.5%2032.443)'%20fill='none'%20stroke='%23fff'%20stroke-linecap='round'%20stroke-width='4'/%3e%3cline%20id='Line_153'%20data-name='Line%20153'%20x2='29.522'%20transform='translate(22.5%2042.519)'%20fill='none'%20stroke='%23fff'%20stroke-linecap='round'%20stroke-width='4'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%20fill='%232c3e50'%20fill-rule='evenodd'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%20d='M14,8a6,6,0,1,0,6,6A6,6,0,0,0,14,8Zm0,10.839A4.839,4.839,0,1,1,18.839,14,4.837,4.837,0,0,1,14,18.839Zm1.5-2.526L13.441,14.82a.292.292,0,0,1-.119-.235V10.613a.291.291,0,0,1,.29-.29h.774a.291.291,0,0,1,.29.29v3.428l1.616,1.176a.29.29,0,0,1,.063.406l-.455.627A.292.292,0,0,1,15.5,16.313Z'%20transform='translate(-8%20-8)'%20fill='%232c3e50'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%20d='M4.1,11.944C.642,6.929,0,6.414,0,4.571a4.571,4.571,0,0,1,9.142,0c0,1.843-.642,2.358-4.1,7.373a.572.572,0,0,1-.94,0Zm.47-5.468a1.9,1.9,0,1,0-1.9-1.9A1.9,1.9,0,0,0,4.571,6.476Z'%20transform='translate(0)'%20fill='%232c3e50'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
Broviac catheter versus percutaneous central venous catheter in neonates and young infants: a prospective observational study
Position du problème et objectif(s) de l’étude
Broviac catheters are very common and improperly requested among neonates and young infants in our setting. The introduction of percutaneous central venous catheters in this population needs assessment. The aim of this study is to compare the difficulty of placement and the outcomes of these two types of central lines among this population.
Matériel et méthodes
In this prospective observational study, we included all neonates and infants under 3 months who had a central line placement in the operating room of pediatric surgery under sevoflurane sedation. Then, we compared the difficulty of placement and the outcomes of Broviac catheters versus central venous catheters. The significance level was set at p<0.05.
Résultats & Discussion
The age of the Broviac catheter group was 1.75± 1 versus 2.7 ± 0.9 months in the CVC group, with p = 0.002. The CVC placement was more difficult with a higher number of attempts (p = 0.04). The central line placement failed in 4 children from the CVC group versus no patient from the Broviac Group, with p = 0.035 and RR = 1.125 [1.04 - 1.556]. The incidence of complications was 50% in the Broviac group versus 30% in the CVC group, with p = 0.138. Broviac catheters had an increased risk of early removal when compared to CVC, with p = 0.025 and RR = 3.09 [1.013–9.45].
Conclusion
The age of the Broviac catheter group was 1.75± 1 versus 2.7 ± 0.9 months in the CVC group, with p = 0.002. The CVC placement was more difficult with a higher number of attempts (p = 0.04). The central line placement failed in 4 children from the CVC group versus no patient from the Broviac Group, with p = 0.035 and RR = 1.125 [1.04 - 1.556]. The incidence of complications was 50% in the Broviac group versus 30% in the CVC group, with p = 0.138. Broviac catheters had an increased risk of early removal when compared to CVC, with p = 0.025 and RR = 3.09 [1.013–9.45].
Auteurs
Manel KAMMOUN, Hend KETATA, Omar FAKHFAKH, Salma BEN AYED, Abir MISSEOUI, Mariem KHROUF, Kais MAATALLAH, Anouar JARRAYA - (1)Chu Hedi Chaker De Sfax, Sfax, Tunisie