Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ray, C. E.
Right arrow Articles by Shenoy, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ray, C. E., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Shenoy, S. S.

Radiology, Vol 204, 97-99, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Patients with thrombocytopenia: outcome of radiologic placement of central venous access devices

CE Ray Jr and SS Shenoy
Department of Radiology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.

PURPOSE: To determine prospectively the outcome of radiologic placement of central venous access devices in patients with thrombocytopenia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 105 patients, 87 catheters, 10 arm port systems, and eight chest port systems were placed radiologically. Devices and patients were separated into group A (n = 37; platelet count < 50,000 x 10(6)/L [50 x 10(9)/L]), group B (n = 35; platelet count, 50-100,000 x 10(6)/L [0.05-100 x 10(9)/L]), and group C (n = 33; platelet count, > 100,000 x 10(6)/L [100 x 10(9)/L]). Patients in group A received platelet transfusions during implantation. Patients were followed up for up to 8 weeks (mean, 41.2 days). Success and complication rates (immediate and delayed) were determined for each group. RESULTS: There were no bleeding complications that necessitated intervention in patients with thrombocytopenia (groups A and B). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates per "catheter days" among the three groups (4.2 per 1,000 catheter days in group A, 4.6 per 1,000 catheter days in group B, and 5.2 per 1,000 catheter days in group C). Postprocedure platelet counts increased only slightly (mean, 11,500 x 10(6)/L [11.5 x 10(9)/L]) in patients in group A. CONCLUSION: Radiologic placement of central venous access devices can be performed safely in patients with thrombocytopenia.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
C. A. Schiffer, K. C. Anderson, C. L. Bennett, S. Bernstein, L. S. Elting, M. Goldsmith, M. Goldstein, H. Hume, J. J. McCullough, R. E. McIntyre, et al.
Platelet Transfusion for Patients With Cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2001; 19(5): 1519 - 1538.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1997 by the Radiological Society of North America.