首页> 外文期刊>Critical care : >Optimal site for ultrasound-guided venous catheterisation in paediatric patients: an observational study to investigate predictors for catheterisation success and a randomised controlled study to determine the most successful site
【24h】

Optimal site for ultrasound-guided venous catheterisation in paediatric patients: an observational study to investigate predictors for catheterisation success and a randomised controlled study to determine the most successful site

机译:小儿患者超声引导静脉导管插入术的最佳部位:一项观察研究,以研究导管插入术成功的预测因素,以及一项随机对照研究,以确定最成功的部位

获取原文
       

摘要

IntroductionVenous catheterisation in paediatric patients can be technically challenging. We examined factors affecting catheterisation of invisible and impalpable peripheral veins in children and evaluated the best site for ultrasound-guided catheterisation.MethodsSystolic pressure, age, sex, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status were determined in 96 children weighing less than 20?kg. Vein diameter and subcutaneous depth were measured with ultrasound. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the contribution of these factors to cannulation success with (n?=?65) or without (n?=?31) ultrasound guidance. Thereafter, we randomly assigned 196 patients for venous catheter insertion in the dorsal veins of the hand, the cephalic vein in the forearm, or the great saphenous vein. Success rates and vein diameters were evaluated by using Dunn tests; insertion time was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence analysis.ResultsIndependent predictors of catheterisation were ultrasound guidance (odds ratio (OR)?=?7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 26.0, P?=?0.002), vein diameter (OR?=?1.5 per 0.1?mm increase in diameter, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.0, P?=?0.007), and ASA physical status (OR?=?0.4 per status 1 increase, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, P?=?0.03). Cephalic veins were significantly larger (cephalic diameter 1.8?mm, P?=?0.001 versus saphenous 1.5?mm, P <0.001 versus dorsal 1.5?mm). Catheterisation success rates were significantly better at the cephalic vein than either the dorsal hand or saphenous vein (cephalic 95%, 95% CI 89% to 100%, P <0.001 versus dorsal 69%, 95% CI 56% to 82%, P?=?0.03 versus saphenous 75%, 95% CI 64% to 86%).ConclusionsThe cephalic vein in the proximal forearm appears to be the most appropriate initial site for ultrasound-guided catheterisation in invisible and impalpable veins of paediatric patients.Trial registry numberUMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000010961. Registered on 14 June 2013.
机译:简介小儿患者的静脉导管插入术在技术上可能具有挑战性。我们检查了影响儿童隐形和不可触及外周静脉导管插入的因素,并评估了超声引导导管插入的最佳部位。方法确定了96名体重不足20岁的儿童的收缩压,年龄,性别和美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)的身体状况?公斤。超声测量静脉直径和皮下深度。使用logistic回归评估超声引导下(n?=?65)或不使用(n?=?31)时这些因素对插管成功的贡献。此后,我们随机分配了196例患者的静脉导管插入手背静脉,前臂头静脉或大隐静脉。使用Dunn检验评估成功率和静脉直径。结果通过Kaplan-Meier累积发生率分析评估了插入时间。结果导管插入的独立预测因素是超声引导(比值比(OR)?=?7.3,95%置信区间(CI)2.0至26.0,P?=?0.002),静脉直径(OR?=?1.5 /直径每增加0.1?mm,95%CI 1.1至2.0,P?=?0.007)和ASA物理状态(OR?=?0.4,每增加1状态,95%CI 0.2至0.9 ,P≥0.03)。头静脉明显更大(头顶直径为1.8?mm,P?=?0.001相对于隐性1.5?mm,P <0.001与背侧1.5?mm)。头静脉的插管成功率显着优于背侧或隐静脉(头95%,95%CI 89%至100%,P <0.001,而背侧69%,95%CI 56%至82%,P α=?0.03 vs隐性75%,95%CI 64%到86%)。结论前臂近端的头静脉似乎是小儿患者无形和不可穿刺静脉中超声引导导尿的最合适初始部位。 UMIN临床试验注册号为UMIN000010961。 2013年6月14日注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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