首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided placement of peripherally inserted central catheter performed by neurointensivist in neurosurgery intensive care unit
【2h】

Safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided placement of peripherally inserted central catheter performed by neurointensivist in neurosurgery intensive care unit

机译:由神经强化医师在神经外科重症监护病房中进行超声引导下置入中心插入中央导管的安全性和可行性

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

We evaluated the safety and feasibility of ultrasound-guided peripherally-inserted central venous catheters (PICC) by a neurointensivist at the bedside compared to fluoroscopy-guided PICC and conventional central venous catheter (CCVC). This was a retrospective study of adult patients who underwent central line placement and were admitted to the neurosurgical intensive care unit (ICU) between January 2014 and March 2018. In this study, the primary endpoint was central line-induced complications. The secondary endpoint was initial success of central line placement. Placements of ultrasound-guided PICC and CCVC performed at the bedside if intra-hospital transport was inappropriate. Other patients underwent PICC placement at the interventional radiology suite under fluoroscopic guidance. A total of 191 patients underwent central line placement in the neurosurgery ICU during the study period. Requirement for central line infusion (56.0%) and difficult venous access (28.8%) were the most common reasons for central line placement. The basilic vein (39.3%) and the subclavian vein (35.1%) were the most common target veins among patients who underwent central line placement. The placements of ultrasound-guided PICC and CCVC at the bedside were more frequently performed in patients on mechanical ventilation (p = 0.001) and with hemodynamic instability (p <0.001) compared to the fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement. The initial success rate of central line placement was better in the fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement than in the placements of ultrasound-guided PICC and CCVC at the bedside (p = 0.004). However, all re-inserted central lines were successful. There was no significant difference in procedure time between the three groups. However, incidence of insertional injuries was higher in CCVC group compared to PICC groups (p = 0.038). Ultrasound-guided PICC placement by a neurointensivist may be safe and feasible compared to fluoroscopy-guided PICC placement by interventional radiologists and CCVC placement for neurocritically ill patients.
机译:与荧光透视引导的PICC和传统的中央静脉导管(CCVC)相比,我们评估了床旁的神经强化医师在超声引导下外周插入的中央静脉导管(PICC)的安全性和可行性。这是一项对2014年1月至2018年3月之间接受中心线放置并入神经外科重症监护病房(ICU)的成年患者的回顾性研究。在这项研究中,主要终点是中心线引起的并发症。次要终点是中心线放置的最初成功。如果医院内运输不适当,则在床旁放置超声引导的PICC和CCVC。其他患者在透视引导下在介入放射科接受PICC放置。在研究期间,共有191名患者在神经外科ICU中接受了中心线放置。中心线输注的需求(56.0%)和静脉通路困难(28.8%)是中心线放置的最常见原因。在行中心线置入术的患者中,基底静脉(39.3%)和锁骨下静脉(35.1%)是最常见的目标静脉。超声引导下PICC和CCVC放置在床旁的患者在机械通气(p = 0.001)和血流动力学不稳定(p <0.001)的患者中比荧光透视引导下PICC放置更为频繁。透视引导下PICC放置中心线的初始成功率要好于床旁超声引导下PICC和CCVC放置的中心率(p = 0.004)。但是,所有重新插入的中心线均成功。三组之间的手术时间没有显着差异。但是,CCVC组的插入损伤发生率高于PICC组(p = 0.038)。与介入放射科医生的透视引导的PICC放置和神经危重患者的CCVC放置相比,由神经强化科医生进行超声引导的PICC放置可能是安全和可行的。

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