Comparison between ultrasound and chest X-ray to confirm central venous catheter tip position.

IF 0.7 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Leoni de Man, Mari Wentzel, Cornel van Rooyen, Edwin Turton
{"title":"Comparison between ultrasound and chest X-ray to confirm central venous catheter tip position.","authors":"Leoni de Man,&nbsp;Mari Wentzel,&nbsp;Cornel van Rooyen,&nbsp;Edwin Turton","doi":"10.4102/sajr.v27i1.2587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mechanical central venous catheter (CVC) placement complications are mostly malposition or iatrogenic pneumothorax. Verification of catheter position by chest X-ray (CXR) is usually performed postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This prospective observational study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of peri-operative ultrasound and a 'bubble test' to detect malposition and pneumothorax.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Sixty-one patients undergoing peri-operative CVC placement were included. An ultrasound protocol was used to directly visualise the CVC, perform the 'bubble test' and assess for the presence of pneumothorax. The time from agitated saline injection to visualisation of microbubbles in the right atrium was evaluated to determine the correct position of the CVC. The time required to perform the ultrasound assessment was compared to that of conducting the CXR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Chest X-ray identified 12 (19.7%) malpositions while ultrasound identified 8 (13.1%). Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.93) and a specificity of 0.5 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.84). The positive and negative predictive values were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.98) and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.65), respectively. No pneumothorax was identified on ultrasound and CXR. The median time for ultrasound assessment was significantly shorter at 4 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-6 min), compared to performing a CXR that required a median time of 29 min (IQR: 18-56 min) (<i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study showed that ultrasound produced a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in detecting CVC malposition.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>Ultrasound can improve efficiency when used as a rapid bedside screening test to detect CVC malposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":43442,"journal":{"name":"SA Journal of Radiology","volume":"27 1","pages":"2587"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10319935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v27i1.2587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mechanical central venous catheter (CVC) placement complications are mostly malposition or iatrogenic pneumothorax. Verification of catheter position by chest X-ray (CXR) is usually performed postoperatively.

Objectives: This prospective observational study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of peri-operative ultrasound and a 'bubble test' to detect malposition and pneumothorax.

Method: Sixty-one patients undergoing peri-operative CVC placement were included. An ultrasound protocol was used to directly visualise the CVC, perform the 'bubble test' and assess for the presence of pneumothorax. The time from agitated saline injection to visualisation of microbubbles in the right atrium was evaluated to determine the correct position of the CVC. The time required to perform the ultrasound assessment was compared to that of conducting the CXR.

Results: Chest X-ray identified 12 (19.7%) malpositions while ultrasound identified 8 (13.1%). Ultrasound showed a sensitivity of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.93) and a specificity of 0.5 (95% CI: 0.16 to 0.84). The positive and negative predictive values were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.98) and 0.33 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.65), respectively. No pneumothorax was identified on ultrasound and CXR. The median time for ultrasound assessment was significantly shorter at 4 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 3-6 min), compared to performing a CXR that required a median time of 29 min (IQR: 18-56 min) (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: This study showed that ultrasound produced a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in detecting CVC malposition.

Contribution: Ultrasound can improve efficiency when used as a rapid bedside screening test to detect CVC malposition.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

超声与胸片对比确定中心静脉导管尖端位置。
背景:机械中心静脉导管(CVC)置入并发症多为体位错位或医源性气胸。通过胸部x光片(CXR)验证导管位置通常在术后进行。目的:本前瞻性观察研究评估围手术期超声和“气泡试验”对体位错位和气胸的诊断准确性。方法:对61例围手术期CVC置入术患者进行分析。使用超声方案直接观察CVC,进行“气泡测试”并评估气胸的存在。评估从注射搅拌生理盐水到观察右心房微泡的时间,以确定CVC的正确位置。进行超声评估所需的时间与进行CXR的时间进行比较。结果:胸片检出12例(19.7%)位错,超声检出8例(13.1%)位错。超声的敏感性为0.85(95%可信区间[CI]: 0.72 ~ 0.93),特异性为0.5(95%可信区间:0.16 ~ 0.84)。阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为0.92 (95% CI: 0.80 ~ 0.98)和0.33 (95% CI: 0.10 ~ 0.65)。超声和CXR未发现气胸。超声评估的中位时间为4分钟(四分位数间距[IQR]: 3-6分钟),而进行CXR需要中位时间为29分钟(IQR: 18-56分钟)(p < 0.0001)。结论:超声检测CVC位错具有较高的敏感性和中等的特异性。贡献:超声作为快速床边筛查检测CVC位错可提高效率。
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
SA Journal of Radiology
SA Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The SA Journal of Radiology is the official journal of the Radiological Society of South Africa and the Professional Association of Radiologists in South Africa and Namibia. The SA Journal of Radiology is a general diagnostic radiological journal which carries original research and review articles, pictorial essays, case reports, letters, editorials, radiological practice and other radiological articles.
×
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