Skip to main content

US Counterpoint to Chapter 21

  • Chapter
The Bionic Human
  • 1322 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 19 provides a well-researched review of current practices and devices for providing secure venous access for a variety of medical therapies. In addition, the chapter includes the results of a survey the authors performed of general and vascular surgeons in Ohio. This survey provides a unique perspective on the prevailing practice patterns of the general surgeons in the community who probably insert the majority of venous access devices in that geographic area. I found this survey and its results quite interesting because they reinforce my opinions on the general pattern of venous access device usage in the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, et al. A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1979;148:871–875.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, et al. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 1982;92:706–712.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McCready D, Broadwater R, Ross M, et al. A case-control comparison of durability and cost between implanted reservoir and percutaneous catheters in cancer patients. J Surg Res 1991;51:377–381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Raad I, Davis S, Becker M, et al. Low infection rate and long durability of nontunneled silastic catheters. A safe and cost-effective alternative for long-term venous access. Arch Int Med 1993;153:1791–1796.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrews JC, Walker-Andrews SC, Ensminger WD. Long-term central venous access with a peripherally placed subcutaneous infusion port: initial results. Radiology 1990;176:45–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen ML, Hancock ML, Gattuso J, et al. Parenteral nutrition associated with increased infection rate in children with cancer. Cancer 1993;72:2732–2738.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mirro J, Jr., Rao BN, Stokes DC, et al. A prospective study of Hickman/Broviac catheters and implantable ports in pediatric oncology patients. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:214–222.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Timsit J, Sebille V, Farkas J, et al. Effect of subcutaneous tunneling on internal jugular catheter-related sepsis in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized multicenter study. JAMA 1996;276:1416–1420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wagman LD, Kirkemo A, Johnston MR. Venous access: a prospective, randomized study of the Hickman catheter. Surgery 1984;95:303–308.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitman ED. A neural network to predict prospectively the risk of central venous access device infection. Surg Forum 1996;XLVII:630–632.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Broadwater JR, Henderson MA, Bell JL, et al. Outpatient percutaneous central venous access in cancer patients. Am J Surg 1990;160:676–680.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whitman ED. Complications associated with the use of central venous access devices. Curr Prob Surg 1996;33:309–378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, et al. Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:257–266.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:267–274.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Raad I, Luna M, Khalil SM, et al. The relationship between the thrombotic and infectious complications of central venous catheters. JAMA 1994;271:1014–1016.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaudaux P, Pittet D, Haeberli A, et al. Fibronectin is more active than fibrin or fibrinogen in promoting Staphylococcus aureus adherence to inserted intravascular catheters. J Infect Dis 1993;167:633–641.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Whitman ED. Vascular Access for Cancer. In: Norton JA, Bollinger RR, Chang AE, et al., eds. Surgery: basic science and clinical evidence. New York: Springer, 2001, pp. 1795–1821.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Whitman, E.D. (2006). US Counterpoint to Chapter 21. In: Johnson, F.E., Virgo, K.S., Lairmore, T.C., Audisio, R.A. (eds) The Bionic Human. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-975-2_43

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics