A comparison between two radiological criteria for verifying tip location of central venous catheters

Author:

Pittiruti Mauro1ORCID,Bilancia Andrea2,Ortiz Miluy Gloria3,D’Arrigo Sonia1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy

2. Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy

3. Hospital Universitario Fundaciòn Jimènez Dìaz, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Introduction: Current guidelines recommend intraprocedural methods—such as Intra-Cavitary ECG (IC-ECG) and echocardiography—for verifying the location of the tip of central venous catheters. Nonetheless, there are clinical conditions which may require to verify tip location by less accurate methods such as Chest X-Ray (CXR). We have compared the feasibility and accuracy of two radiological methods for tip location—the Sweet Spot Criterion (SSC) and the Carina Criterion (CC)—using IC-ECG as reference. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, we reviewed the radiology databases of three hospitals, examining all CXRs performed on patients after insertion of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs), as long as the tip location had been successfully performed during the procedure by IC-ECG. Tip location was verified using SSC and CC, comparing the two methods in terms of feasibility and accuracy. Results: We reviewed the CXR of 1116 PICCs successfully inserted by IC-ECG. CC was not feasible in 0.5% (impossible visualization of the carina) and difficult in 1.5%; in 97.7% of cases, the position of the tip was adequate (1–5 cm below the carina), in 0.6% too high (<1 cm), in 1.2% too low (6–9 cm). On the other hand, because of unclear visualization of radiological landmarks, SSC was not feasible in 0.9% and difficult in 10.5%; though, according to SSC the tip location was always acceptable (in 94.2% the tip was in the middle of the spot, in 2.5% close to the superior border, and in 2.3% close to the inferior border); no tip was visualized outside of the spot. Conclusion: CC and SSC were similar in terms of feasibility (99.5% vs 99.1%) and accuracy (98.1% vs 100%), though CC was subjectively perceived to be easier and more rapid to perform.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Nephrology,Surgery

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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