Cited by 24Intravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisIntramuscular injections and effects

Effect of Steel and Teflon Infusion Catheters on Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Blood Flow and Infusion Counter Pressure in Humans

Højbjerre, Lise, Skov-Jensen, Camilla, Kaastrup, Peter, Pedersen, Per Elgård, Stallknecht, Bente·2009·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background Subcutaneous tissue is an important target for drug deposition or infusion. A local trauma may induce alterations in local microcirculation and diffusion barriers with consequences for drug bioavailability. We examined the influence of infusion catheters' wear time on local microcirculation and infusion counter pressure. Methods One steel catheter and one Teflon (Dupont, Wilmington, DE) catheter were inserted in subcutaneous, abdominal adipose tissue (SCAAT) in 10 healthy, lean men. The catheters were infused with isotonic saline at a rate of 10 microL/h for 48 h. Another steel catheter and a Teflon catheter were inserted contralateral to the previous catheters after 48 h. The infusion counter pressure was measured during a basal infusion rate followed by a bolus infusion. The measurements during a basal rate infusion were repeated after the bolus infusion. Adipose tissue blood flow (ATBF) was measured in SCAAT continuously. Results A significant increase in ATBF was observed with wear time for Teflon but not for steel catheters. Mean infusion pressure during the bolus phase increased significantly from 0 to 48 h for Teflon but not for steel catheters. ATBF and infusion counter pressure was similar between Teflon and steel catheters after acute catheter implantation and after wear time of 48 h. The maximum value of pressure during the bolus phase increased with wear time of a catheter. Conclusions ATBF and bolus mean infusion pressure increased significantly with a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2008.0061

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Højbjerre, L., Skov-Jensen, C., Kaastrup, P., Pedersen, P. E., & Stallknecht, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Novo Nordisk (Denmark) (DK)
Corresponding author
Højbjerre, Lise
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2009-05
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
301-306
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
OpenAlex
W2026697237
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Novo Nordisk
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
Keywords
infusion catheter, Teflon catheter, subcutaneous adipose tissue, adipose tissue blood flow, local microcirculation, biocompatibility, bolus infusion, drug delivery
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Flow Velocity, Calibration, Catheterization, Catheterization, Peripheral, Diabetes Mellitus, Equipment Design, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Infusions, Intravenous, Insulin, Polytetrafluoroethylene, Skinfold Thickness, Steel, Body Mass Index, Subcutaneous Fat

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review