Jian Wang, Jie Zhang, Yi Zhang, Xianglan Liu, Chuanzhe Bai, Renlong Yu, Cheng Zhang, Xiaowen Qiu
{"title":"Feasibility and safety analysis of distal radial arterial catheterization for arterial pressure monitoring in ICU.","authors":"Jian Wang, Jie Zhang, Yi Zhang, Xianglan Liu, Chuanzhe Bai, Renlong Yu, Cheng Zhang, Xiaowen Qiu","doi":"10.1007/s10877-025-01313-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and safety of distal radial artery (DRA) catheterization compared to conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study enrolled 197 ICU patients requiring invasive arterial pressure monitoring between May 2024 and March 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to either the DRA group (n = 99) or CRA group (n = 98). Primary outcome was first-attempt puncture success rate. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, catheterization time, compression time for hemostasis, abnormal waveform frequency, unplanned removal rate, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The DRA group demonstrated significantly lower first-attempt puncture success rates compared to the CRA group (68.69% vs. 82.65%, P = 0.022). With ultrasound assistance, final success rates were comparable between groups (98.99% vs. 97.96%, P = 0.993). Total catheterization time (133.61 ± 35.82s vs. 126.50 ± 36.99s, P = 0.175) and abnormal waveform frequency were similar between groups. The DRA group exhibited significantly shorter hemostasis times (224.45 ± 55.25s vs. 417.56 ± 71.32s, P < 0.001). Both groups had low complication rates with no statistically significant differences (1.01% vs. 3.06%, P = 0.621).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite lower first-attempt success rates, DRA catheterization provides equivalent monitoring stability to CRA with significantly reduced hemostasis time and comparable safety profiles. DRA represents a viable alternative for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in ICU patients, particularly those requiring rapid hemostasis, preservation of forearm radial artery integrity, and patients in special positioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":"767-774"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-025-01313-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of distal radial artery (DRA) catheterization compared to conventional radial artery (CRA) catheterization for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
Methods: This single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study enrolled 197 ICU patients requiring invasive arterial pressure monitoring between May 2024 and March 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to either the DRA group (n = 99) or CRA group (n = 98). Primary outcome was first-attempt puncture success rate. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, catheterization time, compression time for hemostasis, abnormal waveform frequency, unplanned removal rate, and complications.
Results: The DRA group demonstrated significantly lower first-attempt puncture success rates compared to the CRA group (68.69% vs. 82.65%, P = 0.022). With ultrasound assistance, final success rates were comparable between groups (98.99% vs. 97.96%, P = 0.993). Total catheterization time (133.61 ± 35.82s vs. 126.50 ± 36.99s, P = 0.175) and abnormal waveform frequency were similar between groups. The DRA group exhibited significantly shorter hemostasis times (224.45 ± 55.25s vs. 417.56 ± 71.32s, P < 0.001). Both groups had low complication rates with no statistically significant differences (1.01% vs. 3.06%, P = 0.621).
Conclusion: Despite lower first-attempt success rates, DRA catheterization provides equivalent monitoring stability to CRA with significantly reduced hemostasis time and comparable safety profiles. DRA represents a viable alternative for invasive arterial pressure monitoring in ICU patients, particularly those requiring rapid hemostasis, preservation of forearm radial artery integrity, and patients in special positioning.
目的:评价桡动脉远端动脉(DRA)置管与常规桡动脉(CRA)置管在重症监护病房(ICU)患者有创动脉压力监测中的可行性和安全性。方法:这项单中心、前瞻性、随机对照研究于2024年5月至2025年3月招募了197例需要有创动脉压监测的ICU患者。患者随机分为DRA组(n = 99)和CRA组(n = 98)。主要观察指标为首次穿刺成功率。次要结果包括最终成功率、置管时间、止血压迫时间、异常波形频率、计划外拔除率和并发症。结果:DRA组首次穿刺成功率明显低于CRA组(68.69% vs. 82.65%, P = 0.022)。在超声辅助下,两组间的最终成功率具有可比性(98.99% vs 97.96%, P = 0.993)。两组总置管时间(133.61±35.82s vs 126.50±36.99s, P = 0.175)和异常波形频率相似。DRA组的止血时间明显缩短(224.45±55.25s vs. 417.56±71.32s), P结论:尽管首次尝试成功率较低,但DRA置管与CRA的监测稳定性相当,止血时间明显缩短,安全性相当。DRA是ICU患者有创动脉压监测的可行替代方法,特别是那些需要快速止血、保持前臂桡动脉完整性和特殊体位的患者。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine.
The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group.
The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.