Ultrasound-guided Central Line Insertion and Standard Peripherally Inserted Catheter Placement in Preterm Infants: Comparing Results from Prospective Study in a Single-center.

Dany Antanios Al Hamod, Smart Zeidan, Ayah Al Bizri, Georges Baaklini, Yolla Nassif
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided Central Line Insertion and Standard Peripherally Inserted Catheter Placement in Preterm Infants: Comparing Results from Prospective Study in a Single-center.","authors":"Dany Antanios Al Hamod,&nbsp;Smart Zeidan,&nbsp;Ayah Al Bizri,&nbsp;Georges Baaklini,&nbsp;Yolla Nassif","doi":"10.4103/1947-2714.183011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Among preterm infants, the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is the standard line for central venous access; however, its placement exposes them to hypothermia and pain. Ultrasound (US)-guided central line insertion may be less morbid than standard PICC line.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine the ease, success rate, and morbidity associated with US-guided central line insertion in the internal jugular vein (IJV) by comparing it to the standard PICC line placement.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This is a single-center nonrandomized prospective study evaluating preterm infants between October 2013 and June 2014. Patients were allocated into two groups: The standard group (control group) who underwent blind PICC line insertion and the intervention group who underwent a percutaneous US-guided central line insertion in the IJV. The epicutaneo-cava-catheter was used in both groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty neonates were enrolled on study. A statistically difference in favor of US-IJV insertion was noted concerning the rate of successful first attempt (P < 0.001), insertion (P = 0.001), and procedure duration (P < 0.001) and number of trials (P < 0.001) compared to PICC. No difference in complications (P = 1.000) was noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>US guided catheterization of the IJV technique is faster than PICC line insertion with higher rates of successful first attempt and insertion, less procedure duration and fewer number of trials compared to PICC line insertion. There were no differences in complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19703,"journal":{"name":"North American Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"8 5","pages":"205-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ab/dd/NAJMS-8-205.PMC4899959.pdf","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North American Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1947-2714.183011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Background: Among preterm infants, the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is the standard line for central venous access; however, its placement exposes them to hypothermia and pain. Ultrasound (US)-guided central line insertion may be less morbid than standard PICC line.

Aims: To determine the ease, success rate, and morbidity associated with US-guided central line insertion in the internal jugular vein (IJV) by comparing it to the standard PICC line placement.

Materials and methods: This is a single-center nonrandomized prospective study evaluating preterm infants between October 2013 and June 2014. Patients were allocated into two groups: The standard group (control group) who underwent blind PICC line insertion and the intervention group who underwent a percutaneous US-guided central line insertion in the IJV. The epicutaneo-cava-catheter was used in both groups.

Results: Fifty neonates were enrolled on study. A statistically difference in favor of US-IJV insertion was noted concerning the rate of successful first attempt (P < 0.001), insertion (P = 0.001), and procedure duration (P < 0.001) and number of trials (P < 0.001) compared to PICC. No difference in complications (P = 1.000) was noted.

Conclusion: US guided catheterization of the IJV technique is faster than PICC line insertion with higher rates of successful first attempt and insertion, less procedure duration and fewer number of trials compared to PICC line insertion. There were no differences in complications.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

超声引导下中心导管置入与标准外周导管置入在早产儿中的应用:单中心前瞻性研究的比较结果
背景:在早产儿中,外周插入中心导管(PICC)是中心静脉通路的标准线;然而,它的位置使它们暴露在低温和疼痛之中。超声(US)引导下的中心线插入可能比标准PICC线更少病态。目的:通过与标准PICC线置入的比较,确定us引导下颈内静脉(IJV)中心线置入的容易程度、成功率和发病率。材料和方法:这是一项单中心非随机前瞻性研究,评估2013年10月至2014年6月期间的早产儿。患者被分为两组:标准组(对照组)接受盲置PICC线,干预组接受经皮us引导的IJV中心线置入。两组均采用外皮腔静脉导管。结果:50例新生儿入组。与PICC相比,US-IJV插入的首次尝试成功率(P < 0.001)、插入率(P = 0.001)、手术持续时间(P < 0.001)和试验次数(P < 0.001)均有统计学差异。并发症发生率无差异(P = 1.000)。结论:超声引导下IJV置管技术比PICC置管更快,与PICC置管相比,首次尝试和置管成功率更高,手术时间更短,试验次数更少。并发症发生率无差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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