This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Howard, L. Articles by Timchalk, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Howard, L. Articles by Timchalk, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Five Years of Experience in Patients Receiving Home Nutrition Support with the Implanted Reservoir: A Comparison with the External Catheter

Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York

Christine Claunch, R.D.

Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York

Richard Mcdowell, M.D.

Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York

Maryann Timchalk, B.S.

Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York

This study examines 5 years (1983-1988) of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) experience in 27 patients using the implanted reservoir for venous access. Their catheter-related complications are compared to two control populations using the external catheter. Group I compares the 46 patients who all started HPN in the same 5-year period, group II compares 17 patients with experience of both types of venous access. For the entire 58 patients the average infusion time was 22 months (1 month-8.2 yr) and the average complication rate was about one complication every 2 years. Analyzing the separate groups however, group I implanted reservoir patients did better than those with the external catheter (p < 0.05) and group II external catheter patients did better than those with the implanted reservoir (p < 0.05). A possible explanation for this discrepancy is the greater medical competence of group I patients selecting the reservoir. The data show a clear separation of patients into those who have minimal complications with either device and others who have several complications with both. Two-thirds of the complications were infectious, one third mechanical. The infectious complications were similar with both catheters; clotting was more common with the external catheter and skin erosion was seen only with the reservoir. Eighty % of patients with experience with both type of venous access preferred the implanted reservoir. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 13:478-483, 1989)

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 13, No. 5, 478-483 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607189013005478


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. G. Maki, D. M. Kluger, and C. J. Crnich The Risk of Bloodstream Infection in Adults With Different Intravascular Devices: A Systematic Review of 200 Published Prospective Studies Mayo Clin. Proc., September 1, 2006; 81(9): 1159 - 1171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Steiger Obtaining and Maintaining Vascular Access in the Home Parenteral Nutrition Patient JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, September 1, 2002; 26(5_suppl): S17 - S20. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Yared, D. L. Seidner, E. Steiger, P. M. Hall, and J. V. Nally Tunneled Right Atrial Catheter Infection Presenting as Renal Failure JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 1999; 23(6): 363 - 365. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A.S.P.E.N. Board Guidelines for the Use of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition in Adult and Pediatric Patients JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, July 1, 1993; 17(4_suppl): 1SA - 52SA. [PDF]

				M. A. McFadden, M. H. Delegge, and D. F. Kirby Review: Medication Delivery in the Short-Bowel Syndrome JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, March 1, 1993; 17(2): 180 - 186. [Abstract] [PDF]