A Retrospective Review of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters and Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis in Persons with Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Loupus ◽  
Susan Schuetrumpf ◽  
Laura F. Vazquez

Abstract Introduction: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) are a proven and cost effective alternative to traditional short term central venous catheters inserted via subclavian or jugular vein routes. It has been theorized that persons with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) are more prone to upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) post PICC insertion. Purpose: This study was conducted to determine if there is a statistically significant increase in the incidence of PICC-related upper extremity thrombosis in persons with quadriplegia as compared to other patient populations. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 56 PICC insertions, performed on 44 patients, was conducted to identify risk factors associated with symptomatic upper extremity DVTs. Results: The overall incidence of symptomatic DVTs was 7.1% per PICC line insertion (95% CI 2.8% - 17.0%) and 9.1% per patient (95% CI 3.6% - 21.2%) and the number of DVTs per 1,000 catheter days was 3.14. DVT diagnosis was not significantly associated with any of the patient or PICC-related characteristics examined. The incidence of symptomatic DVTs per PICC line insertion was not significantly different than the lowest incidence of thrombosis reported in the scientific literature among all patients receiving PICCs. Conclusions: Results from this study do not suggest that persons with cervical spinal cord injuries are at increased risk for developing upper-extremity DVTs related to PICC insertion. Due to the retrospective nature of the present study and small sample size, prospective studies are recommended to further examine DVTs in patients' with spinal cord injuries. Estimates from the present study can be used in planning prospective studies.

2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 637-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
AIF Spooren ◽  
YJM Janssen-Potten ◽  
GJ Snoek ◽  
MJ Ijzerman ◽  
E Kerckhofs ◽  
...  

Neurosurgery ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. 244-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay S. Dhall ◽  
Mark N. Hadley ◽  
Bizhan Aarabi ◽  
Daniel E. Gelb ◽  
R. John Hurlbert ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document