文章快速检索 高级检索
  中国感染控制杂志  2020, Vol. 19 Issue (6): 518-525   DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20205396
0

基金项目

国家自然科学基金(81860032);广西自然科学基金(2018GXNSFAA050081)

引用本文 [复制中英文]

甘晓, 应燕萍, 蒋庆娟, 等. 成人家庭肠外营养患者PICC导管相关血流感染发病率的Meta分析[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2020, 19(6): 518-525. DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20205396.
[复制中文]
GAN Xiao, YING Yan-ping, JIANG Qing-juan, et al. Meta-analysis on incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter-related bloodstream infection in adult patients with home parenteral nutrition[J]. Chin J Infect Control, 2020, 19(6): 518-525. DOI: 10.12138/j.issn.1671-9638.20205396.
[复制英文]

作者简介

甘晓(1995-), 女(壮族), 广西来宾市人, 硕士研究生, 主要从事血管通路并发症及血栓预防研究

通信作者

应燕萍 E-mail:yanpingying0116@126.com

文章历史

收稿日期:2019-09-10
成人家庭肠外营养患者PICC导管相关血流感染发病率的Meta分析
甘晓 , 应燕萍 , 蒋庆娟 , 文萃     
广西医科大学第一附属医院护理部, 广西 南宁 530021
摘要目的 比较成人家庭肠外营养(HPN)患者经外周静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(PICC)与中心静脉导管(CVC)的导管相关血流感染(CRBSI)发病率, 为HPN患者选择合适的静脉血管通路装置提供证据支持。方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、JBI图书馆、Pubmed、Embase、Ovid、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普数据库、万方及中国知网建库至2019年3月关于HPN患者CRBSI发病率的研究, 应用Stata 13.0进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入9篇队列研究文献, 1 407例患者。Meta分析结果显示, 使用PICC的HPN患者CRBSI发病率低于CVC (12.14% VS 37.18%, RR=0.42, 95%CI:0.34~0.52)。有6篇文献报道CRBSI日发病率, 结果显示PICC的CRBSI发病率低于CVC(12.97% VS 37.21%, RR=0.37, 95%CI:0.23~0.60)。亚组分析结果显示, 不同PICC置管方式组(超声引导、X线检查、未报道组)、报道CRBSI的诊断方法组、不同血管导管使用日数组(报道和未报道组)、报道感染菌群种类组PICC患者CRBSI发病率均低于CVC患者, 差异均有统计学意义(均P < 0.05)。结论 与CVC相比, 成人HPN患者选择PICC进行治疗时CRBSI的发生风险较低。
关键词家庭肠外营养    中心静脉导管    经外周静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管    导管相关血流感染    Meta分析    
Meta-analysis on incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter-related bloodstream infection in adult patients with home parenteral nutrition
GAN Xiao , YING Yan-ping , JIANG Qing-juan , WEN Cui     
Department of Nursing, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi 530021, China
Abstract: Objective To compare the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) in adult patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and central venous catheter (CVC), and provide evidence for selecting suitable venous access devices in HPN patients. Methods Studies about CRBSI incidence in HPN patients were searched by computer from Cochrane Library, JBI Library, PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, China Biomedical Literature Database(CBM), VIP Database, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) from the establishment to March 2019, Stata 13.0 was used to perform Meta-analysis. Results A total of 1 407 patients in 9 cohort studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that the incidence of CRBSI in HPN patients using PICC was lower than that in HPN patients using CVC (12.14% vs 37.18%, RR=0.42, 95% CI:0.34-0.52). Six literatures reported the incidence of CRBSI per 1 000 catheter days, results showed that incidence of CRBSI in PICC was lower than that in CVC (12.97% vs 37.21%, RR=0.37, 95% CI:0.23-0.60). Subgroup analysis results showed that incidence of CRBSI in patients in PICC group were all lower than CVC group in the following subgroups:different PICC placement groups (ultrasound guidance, X-ray examination, unreported), reported CRBSI diagnostic method group, different vascular catheterization day groups (reported group and unreported group), and reported infectious flora species group, differences were all statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with CVC, the risk of CRBSI is lower when adult HPN patients choose PICC for treatment.
Key words: home parenteral nutrition    central venous catheter    peripheraly inserted central catheter    catheter-related bloodstream infection    Meta-analysis    

家庭肠外营养(home parenteral nutrition,HPN)让需长期或较长期肠外营养治疗的患者可以在家通过静脉途径向患者输送营养物质[1]。据统计,欧洲HPN实施率为2~40/100万人[2],美国每100万人中有79人接受HPN[3]。中心静脉导管(central venous catheter,CVC)和经外周静脉穿刺置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)是HPN常用的静脉血管通路装置。由于血管导管的长期使用,患者常出现堵管、静脉血栓、导管相关血流感染(catheter-related bloodstream infection,CRBSI)等并发症。CRBSI是最严重的并发症,会增加患者再入院率,发病率和病死率[4]。与CVC相比,PICC操作简便、安全可靠、价格低廉,已广泛用于HPN患者[5]。但目前PICC是否比CVC的CRBSI发病率更低,HPN患者如何选择静脉血管通路装置进行治疗仍有争议[6-7]。因此,本研究通过比较成人HPN患者PICC与CVC的CRBSI发生情况,为HPN患者选择合适的静脉血管通路装置提供证据支持。

1 资料与方法 1.1 纳入标准

(1) 研究类型:国内外公开发表的中、英文随机对照试验或队列研究;(2)研究对象:年龄≥18岁,使用CVC(对照组)或PICC(试验组)进行治疗的HPN患者;(3)结局指标: CRBSI的发病率。诊断标准以国内现行或国际公认的临床诊断标准[8-9]

1.2 排除标准

(1) 重复发表的文献;(2)来源不清、未提供有效数据或数据不完整的文献;(3)综述、Meta分析或系统评价、病例报告及动物研究。

1.3 检索策略

以英文主题词home total parenteral nutrition、home parenteral nutrition、home parenteral feeding、bloodstream infection、catheter related infection、catheter related bloodstream infection,检索Cochrane Library、JBI循证卫生保健国际合作中心图书馆、PubMed、Embase、Ovid、Web of Science数据库。以中文检索词家庭肠外营养、家庭全胃肠外营养、家庭肠外喂养、导管血流感染、导管相关性血流感染、导管相关性感染,检索中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、维普数据库(VIP)、万方及中国知网(CNKI)。检索时间从建库至2019年3月。检索均以布尔逻辑运算,按照主题词加自由词的方式进行检索。为避免遗漏,对所获得文献的参考文献进行二次检索。

1.4 资料提取

由2名研究者独立完成文献筛选和资料提取,若有意见不同则与第3名研究者讨论解决。研究中涉及不同组别或多种导管类型时,仅提取与CVC和PICC相关的数据。资料提取内容包括:第一作者、发表时间、研究国家、研究类型、样本量、导管类型、血管导管使用日数、CRBSI发病率、CRBSI日发病率、诊断方法。

1.5 文献质量评价

由2名研究者对所纳入的文献进行质量评价,若意见不同则与第3名研究者讨论解决。队列研究应用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(The Newcastle—Ottawa Scale,NOS)进行评价[10]。满分为9分,NOS评分≤6分为B级,NOS评分>6分为A级。

1.6 统计学方法

应用Stata 13.0软件对数据进行Meta分析,通过计算P值和I2判断各研究之间是否存在统计学异质性。当P≥0.1,I2≤50%时说明各研究间同质性好,选用固定效应模型分析;当P<0.1,I2>50%时说明研究间存在统计学异质性,则选用随机效应模型分析。采用相对危险度(RR)及其95%可信区间(95% CI)对二分类结果进行描述, 并进行亚组分析。采用敏感性分析明确结果的稳定性,队列研究二分类变量推荐采用Harbord法和Peters法评价发表偏倚[11]。以P≤0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果 2.1 文献检索结果

共检索到相关文献1 988篇,其中英文1 761篇,中文227篇。利用Endnote去重658篇,通过阅读题目和摘要剔除1 119篇。阅读全文,排除来源不明,未详细描述CRBSI,或提到CRBSI但未具体描述例数的文献,最终纳入9篇文献[12-20]。其中英文文献8篇[12-18, 20],中文文献1篇[19]。纳入研究患者1 407例,其中PICC患者931例,CVC患者476例。文献检索与筛选流程见图 1,纳入文献基本特征见表 1

图 1 成人HPN患者PICC CRBSI发病率Meta分析文献筛选流程 Figure 1 Literature screening process for Meta-analysis on PICC CRBSI incidence in adult HPN patients

表 1 成人HPN患者PICC CRBSI发病率Meta分析纳入文献的基本特征 Table 1 Basic characteristics of included literatures for Meta-analysis on PICC CRBSI incidence in adult HPN patients
2.2 纳入文献质量评价

纳入9篇文献[12-20]均为队列研究,应用NOS进行评价。9篇队列研究的等级均为A级,见表 2

表 2 成人HPN患者PICC CRBSI发病率Meta分析纳入文献的质量评价 Table 2 Quality evaluation of included literatures for Meta-analysis on PICC CRBSI incidence in adult HPN patients
2.3 Meta分析结果 2.3.1 CRBSI发病率

9篇文献[12-20]描述了CRBSI发病率,各研究之间无统计学异质性(I2=38.6%,P=0.111),采用固定效应模型分析。结果显示PICC组患者CRBSI发病率低于CVC组(12.14% VS 37.18%),差异有统计学意义,见图 2。通过Harbord法和Peters法检验文献的发表偏倚,Harbord法(t=-1.49,P=0.179)、Peters法(t=-0.11,P= 0.916)检验结果提示无发表偏倚。在敏感性分析中,剔除任意一篇文献对结果无明显影响,见图 34。共有6篇文献报道了PICC与CVC的日发病率,各研究之间存在异质性(I2=60.7%,P=0.026),采用随机效应模型分析。结果显示PICC组患者CRBSI发病率低于CVC组患者(12.97% VS 37.21%),差异有统计学意义,见图 5

图 2 成人HPN患者PICC CRBSI发病率Meta分析森林图 Figure 2 Forest plot for Meta-analysis on PICC CRBSI incidence in adult HPN patients

图 3 两组CRBSI发病率比较的Harbord图 Figure 3 Harbord plot of comparison in CRBSI incidence between two groups

图 4 成人HPN患者PICC CRBSI发病率纳入研究的敏感性分析图 Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis plot of included literatures on PICC CRBSI incidence in adult HPN patients

图 5 两组患者CRBSI发病率比较的森林图 Figure 5 Forest plot of comparison in incidence of CRBSI between two groups of patients
2.3.2 导管维护为已培训的家庭护理人员时两组CRBSI发病率

有5篇文献[12,16-18,20]报道了HPN血管导管维护人员为已培训的家庭护理人员,各研究间无统计学异质性(I2=45.1%,P=0.121),采用固定效应模型分析。结果显示PICC组患者CRBSI发病率低于CVC组,差异有统计学意义[RR=0.55,95%CI(0.41,0.76)],见图 6

图 6 血管导管维护为家庭护理人员时两组CRBSI发病率的Meta分析 Figure 6 Meta-analysis on incidence of CRBSI between two groups when blood catheters were maintained by home caregivers
2.3.3 亚组分析

对患者PICC置管方式,CRBSI诊断方法、血管导管使用日数、感染菌群种类是否报道进行亚组分析,结果显示不同PICC置管方式组(超声引导、X线检查、未报道组)、报道CRBSI的诊断方法组、不同血管导管使用日数组(报道和未报道组)、报道感染菌群种类组PICC患者CRBSI发病率均低于CVC患者,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。见表 3

表 3 亚组分析结果 Table 3 Subgroup analysis results
3 讨论

HPN能为无法正常进食或营养障碍的患者提供基本生命支持治疗,改善营养状况,提高生活质量。由于血管导管属于侵入性操作并且留置血管内,经常会发生CRBSI。CRBSI的发生会导致患者治疗中断,医疗费用增加。由于CRBSI所造成的经济损失平均为30 713元/例[21],英国儿科重症监护病房(PICU)CRBSI事件一年需消耗250多万英镑[22],对社会医疗卫生系统造成极大的负担。

本研究Meta分析结果显示,使用PICC的成人HPN患者,CRBSI发病率较CVC低,与Hon等[23]研究结果一致;HPN患者CRBSI日发病率为0~1.96‰,低于相关报道[24-25]。美国肠外和肠内营养学会(ASPEN)推荐HPN治疗时间小于1个月应使用PICC,若需要长期肠外营养治疗则选用CVC[6]。CVC留置时间为2~4周,PICC留置时间不超过1年[26]。因此,长期肠外营养治疗的患者需频繁更换CVC,反复多次穿刺置管及穿刺部位细菌沿导管表面持续迁移和繁殖入血, 可导致CRBSI[27]。肠外营养是CBBSI发生的独立危险因素[28],且长时间的HPN(>250 d)治疗与CRBSI相关[29]。肠外营养液所富含的营养物质(葡萄糖、氨基酸和脂质乳液)为细菌的入侵和定植提供了良好的培养基,有利于细菌生物膜的形成,导致细菌抵御抗菌药物和机体免疫细胞的杀伤,增加CRBSI的发病率[30]

HPN患者肠外营养输注及导管维护通常由家庭护理人员进行,包括家属、家庭护士或输液公司派遣的输液护士[14]。本研究肠外营养的输注及导管维护由已培训的家庭护理人员操作,CRBSI发病率为15.67%(123/785)。研究指出,血管导管处理不当或家庭护理人员缺乏血管导管维护相关的培训与CRBSI发病率较高有关[31]。家庭护理人员经过专业的肠外营养管理培训后,无论在医院或者在家中为HPN患者护理导管,CRBSI的发病率均无明显差异[32-33]。CRBSI的发生多数与血管导管或药物污染相关。经过严格培训的护理人员掌握无菌操作技术,可切断由于操作引起CRBSI发生的途径[34]。另外,多学科团队(医生、护士、营养师、药师)对患者及护理人员提供HPN知识增强其知信行,有助于减少CRBSI发生[35]。所有血管导管护理人员无论是护士还是非医疗护理人员,坚持无菌操作技术,由资源丰富的多学科团队通过安全的远程医疗提高HPN患者的家庭护理水平,是减少CRBSI发生的关键[32, 35-38]

本研究局限性:(1)本研究仅纳入了中文和英文文献,排除了其他语言的文献,可能会存在文献收录不全。(2)由于回顾性研究固有的局限性,无法排除回忆偏倚和选择偏倚的可能性,并且这些偏倚可能会影响结果。(3)纳入的文献数量较少,部分样本量较小,降低结果的准确性。因此,今后还需开展大量高质、科学全面、多中心的前瞻性队列研究,并将年龄<18岁的患者纳入,进一步验证研究结论。

综上所述,与CVC相比,使用PICC患者发生CRBSI风险较低。但在临床上PICC和CVC的使用并不是随机的, 而且PICC较易形成血栓,患者在选择静脉通路装置进行肠外营养治疗时应结合具体情况。HPN降低了患者营养不良的发生率, 避免了长期住院, 提高生活质量的同时还节省医疗费用, 有显著的社会效益。目前我国社区医疗卫生系统尚未发展成熟,院外HPN支持环节薄弱, 亟需探索经济、安全、科学、有效的HPN支持方式来改善患者营养状况,减少HPN及其导管相关并发症的发生, 如医疗保险的保障,社区医疗卫生系统的完善,相关协议的制定,多学科及HPN护理团队的建立,患者及相关人员的培训管理,营养制剂的深入研究以及远程信息化管理模式的构建与应用等。

参考文献
[1]
吴国豪, 谈善军. 成人家庭肠外营养中国专家共识[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2017, 37(4): 406-411.
[2]
Staun M, Pironi L, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in adult patients[J]. Clin Nutr, 2009, 28(4): 467-479. DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.04.001
[3]
Mundi MS, Pattinson A, McMahon MT, et al. Prevalence of home parenteral and enteral nutrition in the United States[J]. Nutr Clin Pract, 2017, 32(6): 799-805. DOI:10.1177/0884533617718472
[4]
Vallabh H, Konrad D, DeChicco R, et al. Thirty-day readmission rate is high for hospitalized patients discharged with home parenteral nutrition or intravenous fluids[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2017, 41(8): 1278-1285. DOI:10.1177/0148607116664785
[5]
Kirby DF, Corrigan ML, Hendrickson E, et al. Overview of home parenteral nutrition: an update[J]. Nutr Clin Pract, 2017, 32(6): 739-752. DOI:10.1177/0884533617734528
[6]
Kovacevich DS, Corrigan M, Ross VM, et al. American society for parenteral and enteral nutrition guidelines for the selection and care of central venous access devices for adult home parenteral nutrition administration[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2019, 43(1): 15-31. DOI:10.1002/jpen.1455
[7]
Bech LF, Drustrup L, Nygaard L, et al. Environmental risk factors for developing catheter-related bloodstream infection in home parenteral nutrition patients: a 6-year follow-up study[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2016, 40(7): 989-994. DOI:10.1177/0148607115579939
[8]
卫生部临床检验中心. 全国临床检验操作规程[M]. 3版.北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2006: 56-59.
[9]
Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America[J]. Clin Infect Dis, 2009, 49(1): 1-45. DOI:10.1086/599376
[10]
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses[J]. Eur J Epidemiol, 2010, 25(9): 603-605. DOI:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
[11]
Pateras K, Nikolakopoulos S, Roes K. Data-generating models of dichotomous outcomes: Heterogeneity in simulation studies for a random-effects meta-analysis[J]. Stat Med, 2018, 37(7): 1115-1124. DOI:10.1002/sim.7569
[12]
Botella-Carretero JI, Carrero C, Guerra E, et al. Role of peripherally inserted central catheters in home parenteral nutrition: a 5-year prospective study[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2013, 37(4): 544-549. DOI:10.1177/0148607112457422
[13]
Cotogni P, Pittiruti M, Barbero C, et al. Catheter-related complications in cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: a prospective study of over 51, 000 catheter days[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2013, 37(3): 375-383. DOI:10.1177/0148607112460552
[14]
Elfassy S, Kassam Z, Amin F, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for bloodstream infections in a home parenteral nutrition program[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2015, 39(2): 147-153. DOI:10.1177/0148607113502361
[15]
Touré A, Duchamp A, Peraldi C, et al. A comparative study of peripherally-inserted and Broviac catheter complications in home parenteral nutrition patients[J]. Clin Nutr, 2015, 34(1): 49-52. DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2013.12.017
[16]
Christensen LD, Holst M, Bech LF, et al. Comparison of complications associated with peripherally inserted central catheters and HickmanTM catheters in patients with intestinal failure receiving home parenteral nutrition. Six-year follow up study[J]. Clin Nutr, 2016, 35(4): 912-917. DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2015.06.009
[17]
Durkin MJ, Dukes JL, Reeds DN, et al. A descriptive study of the risk factors associated with catheter-related bloodstream infections in the home parenteral nutrition population[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2016, 40(7): 1006-1013. DOI:10.1177/0148607114567899
[18]
Vashi PG, Virginkar N, Popiel B, et al. Incidence of and factors associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection in patients with advanced solid tumors on home parenteral nutrition managed using a standardized catheter care protocol[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2017, 17(1): 372.
[19]
贾震易, 杨俊, 沈炽华, 等. 家庭肠外营养在晚期癌性肠梗阻中的应用分析[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2017, 6(3): 188-193. DOI:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3224.2017.03.003
[20]
Santacruz E, Mateo-Lobo R, Riveiro J, et al. Infectious complications in home parenteral nutrition: a long-term study with peripherally inserted central catheters, tunneled catheters, and Ports[J]. Nutrition, 2019, 58: 89-93. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2018.06.016
[21]
武迎宏, 曹煜隆, 周春莲, 等. 中央导管相关血流感染经济损失的病例对照研究[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2018, 28(17): 2615-2617.
[22]
Harron K, Mok Q, Hughes D, et al. Generalisability and cost-impact of antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters for reducing risk of bloodstream infection in paediatric intensive care units in England[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(3): e0151348. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0151348
[23]
Hon K, Bihari S, Holt A, et al. Rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections between tunneled central venous catheters versus peripherally inserted central catheters in adult home parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2019, 43(1): 41-53. DOI:10.1002/jpen.1421
[24]
谈宜斌, 金学兰, 李源, 等. 综合重症监护病房导管相关性感染目标性监测分析[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2018, 35(3): 230-233.
[25]
Wozniak LJ, Bechtold HM, Reyen LE, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for outpatient-acquired catheter-related bloodstream infections in children receiving home parenteral nutrition[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2018, 42(5): 942-948. DOI:10.1002/jpen.1037
[26]
中华人民共和国卫生和计划生育委员会.静脉治疗护理技术操作规范[S].北京, 2013: 1-12.
[27]
Wallace A, Albadawi H, Patel N, et al. Anti-fouling strategies for central venous catheters[J]. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther, 2017, 7(Suppl 3): S246-S257.
[28]
Li D, Xia R, Zhang Q, et al. Evaluation of candidemia in epidemiology and risk factors among cancer patients in a cancer center of China: an 8-year case-control study[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2017, 17(1): 536.
[29]
Pichitchaipitak O, Ckumdee S, Apivanich S, et al. Predictive factors of catheter-related bloodstream infection in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition[J]. Nutrition, 2018, 46: 1-6. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2017.08.002
[30]
Herek TC, Menegazzo VR, Ogaki MB, et al. Biofilm formation by blood isolates of Candida parapsilosis sensu stricto in the presence of a hyperglycidic solution at comparable concentrations of total parenteral nutrition[J]. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop, 2019, 52: e20180182. DOI:10.1590/0037-8682-0182-2018
[31]
Obling SR, Wilson BV, Kjeldsen J. Home parenteral support in patients with incurable cancer. Patient characteristics of importance for catheter related complications and overall survival[J]. Clin Nutr ESPEN, 2018, 28: 88-95. DOI:10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.09.073
[32]
Dibb MJ, Abraham A, Chadwick PR, et al. Central venous catheter salvage in home parenteral nutrition catheter-related bloodstream infections: long-term safety and efficacy data[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2016, 40(5): 699-704. DOI:10.1177/0148607114549999
[33]
Bond A, Teubner A, Taylor M, et al. Assessing the impact of quality improvement measures on catheter related blood stream infections and catheter salvage: Experience from a national intestinal failure unit[J]. Clin Nutr, 2018, 37(6 Pt A): 2097-2101.
[34]
Buchman AL, Opilla M, Kwasny M, et al. Risk factors for the development of catheter-related bloodstream infections in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition[J]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, 2014, 38(6): 744-749. DOI:10.1177/0148607113491783
[35]
Dibb M, Lal S. Home parenteral nutrition: vascular access and related complications[J]. Nutr Clin Pract, 2017, 32(6): 769-776. DOI:10.1177/0884533617734788
[36]
Mirabel-Chambaud E, N'Guyen M, Valdeyron ML, et al. Dramatic increase of central venous catheter-related infections associated with a high turnover of the nursing team[J]. Clin Nutr, 2016, 35(2): 446-452. DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.011
[37]
Pironi L, Arends J, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on chronic intestinal failure in adults[J]. Clin Nutr, 2016, 35(2): 247-307. DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.01.020
[38]
Nelson EL, Yadrich DM, Thompson N, et al. Telemedicine support groups for home parenteral nutrition users[J]. Nutr Clin Pract, 2017, 32(6): 789-798. DOI:10.1177/0884533617735527