Optimizing Ultrasound Methods for Determining Central Venous Catheter Tip Position.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
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.

优化超声确定中心静脉导管尖端位置的方法。
背景:在临床实践中,医生希望找到更好的技术来快速确定中心静脉导管的位置。目的:本研究旨在探讨各种超声技术判断中心静脉导管尖端位置的优缺点,并探讨各种超声技术的具体应用条件。方法:选取我院194例中心静脉置管患者。采用血管和心脏超声(CVUS)、超声造影(CEUS)和“冲洗线和超声心脏”(flush line and ultrasound the heart, flush)试验确定中心静脉导管尖端位置。我们分析了超声技术的诊断准确性和优点。结果:胸片(CXR)定位中心静脉导管尖端用时72.1±32.3 min,而CVUS、CEUS和FLUSH分别用时3.7±0.9 min、6.7±2.3 min和6.0±1.8 min。超声检查时间与CXR检查时间差异有统计学意义(p < 0.01)。以CXR为金标准,CVUS的灵敏度为100%(95%置信区间[CI]: 97.3% ~ 100%),特异性为68.4% (95% CI: 43.5% ~ 86.4%)。CEUS和FLUSH试验结果一致(灵敏度:100% [95% CI: 97.3%-100%];特异性:84.2% [95% CI: 59.5% ~ 95.8%])。结论:冲洗试验不需要注射造影剂,结果准确性较高,具有较好的临床应用前景。当患者不适合反复推液或超声图像不清晰时,建议更多地使用超声造影来确定导管位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信