Peng Shen, Jingmiao Yu, Fengxue Zhu, Jie Lyu, Huiying Zhao
{"title":"Optimizing Ultrasound Methods for Determining Central Venous Catheter Tip Position.","authors":"Peng Shen, Jingmiao Yu, Fengxue Zhu, Jie Lyu, Huiying Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2025.02.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In clinical practice, physicians hope to find better techniques for rapidly determining central venous catheter positions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of using various ultrasound techniques to judge the tip positions of central venous catheters and to explore the specific application conditions of various ultrasound techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We selected 194 patients with central venous catheterization admitted to our hospital. Vascular and cardiac ultrasound (CVUS), contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), and the \"flush the line and ultrasound the heart\" (FLUSH) test were used to determine the central venous catheter tip position. We analyzed the ultrasound techniques' diagnostic accuracy and advantages.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When locating the central venous catheter tip, chest radiography (CXR) took 72.1 ± 32.3 min whereas CVUS, CEUS, and the FLUSH test took 3.7 ± 0.9 min, 6.7 ± 2.3 min, and 6.0 ± 1.8 min, respectively. The time required for ultrasound examinations differed significantly from that for CXR (p < 0.01). Using CXR as the gold standard, CVUS had a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.3%-100%) and a specificity of 68.4% (95% CI: 43.5%-86.4%). CEUS and the FLUSH test yielded consistent results (sensitivity: 100% [95% CI: 97.3%-100%]; specificity: 84.2% [95% CI: 59.5%-95.8%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FLUSH test, which does not require contrast medium injection, offered higher result accuracies, making it promising for clinical practice. CEUS is recommended more for determining catheter position when the patient is not a good candidate for repeated fluid pushing or when the ultrasound image is not clear.</p>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2025.02.020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In clinical practice, physicians hope to find better techniques for rapidly determining central venous catheter positions.
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of using various ultrasound techniques to judge the tip positions of central venous catheters and to explore the specific application conditions of various ultrasound techniques.
Methods: We selected 194 patients with central venous catheterization admitted to our hospital. Vascular and cardiac ultrasound (CVUS), contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), and the "flush the line and ultrasound the heart" (FLUSH) test were used to determine the central venous catheter tip position. We analyzed the ultrasound techniques' diagnostic accuracy and advantages.
Results: When locating the central venous catheter tip, chest radiography (CXR) took 72.1 ± 32.3 min whereas CVUS, CEUS, and the FLUSH test took 3.7 ± 0.9 min, 6.7 ± 2.3 min, and 6.0 ± 1.8 min, respectively. The time required for ultrasound examinations differed significantly from that for CXR (p < 0.01). Using CXR as the gold standard, CVUS had a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.3%-100%) and a specificity of 68.4% (95% CI: 43.5%-86.4%). CEUS and the FLUSH test yielded consistent results (sensitivity: 100% [95% CI: 97.3%-100%]; specificity: 84.2% [95% CI: 59.5%-95.8%]).
Conclusion: The FLUSH test, which does not require contrast medium injection, offered higher result accuracies, making it promising for clinical practice. CEUS is recommended more for determining catheter position when the patient is not a good candidate for repeated fluid pushing or when the ultrasound image is not clear.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections:
• Original Contributions
• Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN
• Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care
• Techniques and Procedures
• Technical Tips
• Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine
• Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine
• Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency
• Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine
• Medical Classics
• Emergency Forum
• Editorial(s)
• Letters to the Editor
• Education
• Administration of Emergency Medicine
• International Emergency Medicine
• Computers in Emergency Medicine
• Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention
• Ethics
• Humanities and Medicine
• American Academy of Emergency Medicine
• AAEM Medical Student Forum
• Book and Other Media Reviews
• Calendar of Events
• Abstracts
• Trauma Reports
• Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine