首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Heliyon >Accuracy of laboratory tests drawn by pull-push method from central venous catheterization after routine flushing with 10 ml normal saline in patients with sepsis at the emergency department
【2h】

Accuracy of laboratory tests drawn by pull-push method from central venous catheterization after routine flushing with 10 ml normal saline in patients with sepsis at the emergency department

机译:从常规冲洗常规冲洗后常规静脉中的中央静脉导管从中央静脉导管的拉伸方法绘制的实验室试验的准确性

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Central venous catheterization (CVC) remains a common practice in the emergency setting. Routine flushing 10–20 ml of normal saline to maintain the patency of CVC could affect the accuracy of laboratory tests. Typically, physicians require peripheral vein phlebotomy when more blood sampling is needed. One alternative method, the Pull-push method, could avoid the trauma associated with venipuncture and unnecessary peripheral vein phlebotomy. However, there has been no recent study analyzing the accuracy of blood sampling using this technique. We evaluate laboratory tests' accuracy between blood samples drawn by the Pull-push method from CVC after routine flushing with 10 ml of normal saline versus control. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study from May to September 2019. After exclusion, 72 patients were eligible for analysis. Promptly after central venous catheterization, we drew blood samples, stored them in blood collecting tubes, and labeled them for the gold standard group. We flushed with 10 ml of normal saline before blood sampling using the Pull-push method's completed three times; then, we drew blood samples again, labeled Pull-push group. We compared the laboratory results between two groups by paired t-test. The accuracies were analyzed based on an allowable error by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and presented by a modified Bland-Altman plot. The 72 patients were primarily male (n = 47, 65.3%), had a mean age 60.1 ± 14.0 years, and were diagnosed with sepsis (n = 4, 5.6%) or septic shock (n = 65, 90.3%). For almost all the laboratory values, including hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cell count, platelet count, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, and blood sugar, the accuracy was more than 90% (92.8–98.6%), except aPTT (85.5%) and aPTT ratio (86.7%). Laboratory tests drawn by the Pull-push method could replace peripheral vein phlebotomy to avoid the trauma associated with venipuncture and infection risk.
机译:中央静脉导管(CVC)仍然是紧急情况的常见做法。常规冲洗10-20ml的生理盐水以保持CVC的通畅可能会影响实验室测试的准确性。通常,当需要更多的血液取样时,医生需要外周静脉渗漏。一种替代方法,拉推方法,可以避免与静脉穿刺和不必要的外周静脉曲面相关的创伤。然而,最近没有使用这种技术分析血液采样的准确性。在用10mL正常盐水与对照中,在常规冲洗后,从CVC进行CVC从CVC捕获的血样之间的实验室测试准确性。从2019年5月到9月进行了诊断准确性研究。排除后,72名患者有资格进行分析。迅速在中央静脉导管后,我们制作血液样本,储存在血液收集管中,并将其标记为金标准组。在使用拉力推送方法完成三次之前,我们用10毫升的生理盐水冲洗到10毫升的生理盐水中;然后,我们再次制作血液样本,标记为拉动组。我们通过配对的T检验比较了两组之间的实验室结果。根据临床实验室改善修正案(CLIA)的允许误差分析了准确性,并由改进的Bland-Altman Plot呈现。 72名患者主要是雄性(n = 47,65.3%),平均年龄为60.1±14.0岁,并被诊断患有败血症(n = 4,5.6%)或脓毒症休克(n = 65,90.3%)。对于几乎所有实验室值,包括血红蛋白,血细胞比容,白细胞计数,血小板计数,血尿尿素氮,肌酐,钠,钾,氯化物,碳酸氢盐,凝血酶原时间,国际标准化比和血糖,准确性大于除了APTT(85.5%)和APTT比例外,90%(92.8-98.6%)和APTT比例(86.7%)。由拉推方法绘制的实验室测试可以取代外周静脉静脉切开术,以避免与静脉穿刺和感染风险相关的创伤。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号