Groshong versus Hickman catheters.
There has been an increasing need for safe and efficient means of establishing vascular access in the patient with cancer. Recently, the use of percutaneous cannulation of the central veins, using guidewires, venous dilators and tearaway introducer sheaths, has become a popular method of establishing such access. The greatest concerns with the use of such catheters include sepsis, thrombus formation within the vein and catheter malfunction. The current study compared the incidence of these complications with Groshong (Cath Tech CV catheters with Groshong valve) and Hickman (Bard Access Systems vascular access catheters) catheters. Although there was no significant difference in septic complications and thrombus formation between the two groups, there was a significant (p less than 0.05) difference in catheter malfunction. Patients with Hickman catheters experienced significantly less problems with one way intermittent and one way catheters than did patients with Groshong catheters. We conclude that, based on catheter function, the Hickman catheter appears to be a more favorable alternative when compared with the Groshong catheter in the patient with cancer.
Pasquale
M D
MD
Department of Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia 20007.
Campbell
J M
JM
Magnant
C M
CM
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002405:Catheterization, Central Venous / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D002408:Catheters, Indwelling / Q000009:adverse effects; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies