Safety and Outcomes of Peripherally Administered Vasopressor Infusion in Patients Admitted with Shock to an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit—A Single-Center Prospective Study

Author:

Asher Elad1ORCID,Karameh Hani1ORCID,Nassar Hamed1,Yosefy Chaim2,Marmor David1,Perel Nimrod1ORCID,Taha Louay1,Tabi Meir1,Braver Omri2,Shuvy Mony1,Wiener-Well Yonit3,Glikson Michael1,Bruoha Sharon2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Jesselson Integrated Heart Center, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91121, Israel

2. Department of Cardiology, Barzilai Medical Center, The Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

3. Infectious Diseases Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91121, Israel

Abstract

Background: Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU). Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period. Results: A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

General Medicine

Reference39 articles.

1. Vasopressors for shock;Urbanek;Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.,2004

2. Complication of vasopressor infusion through peripheral venous catheter: A systematic review and meta-analysis;Tran;Am. J. Emerg. Med.,2020

3. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial;Merrer;JAMA,2001

4. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization;McGee;N. Engl. J. Med.,2003

5. Procedural complications of central venous catheter insertion;Lennon;Minerva Anestesiol.,2012

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3