低位脐静脉导管并不总是与并发症增加相关

S. Joghee, M. Kamaluddeen, A. Soraisham
{"title":"低位脐静脉导管并不总是与并发症增加相关","authors":"S. Joghee, M. Kamaluddeen, A. Soraisham","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) are frequently used for clinical care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Umbilical venous catheters cannot always be positioned perfectly in the inferior vena cava, and low catheters have to be used until a more stable peripherally inserted central catheter can be placed after ruling-out early onset sepsis. There are concerns that low UVCs may be associated with complications such as infection, extravasation, and thrombosis. Objectives: To determine whether UVC complications were associated with (1) low positioning of the catheter tip and (2) the postnatal age at insertion. Methods: We examined a retrospective cohort of infants with UVCs in a tertiary NICU. Neonates with major congenital anomalies, hydrops fetalis, prenatally diagnosed cardiac arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, or ascites were excluded. The position of UVCs is considered as optimum if its tip is seen on radiographs at the level between 8th and 10th thoracic vertebrae (T8–T10), to be low if below T10, and high if above T8. The primary outcome was UVC-related complications resulting in early removal of catheter. We compared the rates of UVC-related complications resulting in removal of UVCs with tips in normal (T8–T10) vs low-lying (below T10) positions at the time of insertion. We also examined the impact of postnatal age, before or after 12 hours, and the frequency of the UVC-related complication. Results: Of the 919 eligible infants, UVC tips were located optimally in 433 (47%) and were low in 415 (45%). The UVC was positioned at an abnormally high position in 71 (8%) infants. Of the 919 infants, UVC-related complication was seen in 54 (5.9%) infants. Low-lying UVCs were removed due to complications in 27 of 415 (6.5%) compared with 20 of 433 (4.6%) optimally position catheters [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.62–2.17)]. High-placed UVCs were associated with a higher rate of cardiac complications (aOR = 6.09, 95% CI [2.03–18.28]) compared with optimally position UVCs. There was also no difference in UVC-related complications between early and late insertion of UVC (6.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.34). Conclusions: The frequency of complications and consequent need for removal did not differ in UVCs with a tip position traditionally perceived to be optimal or low or by the time of insertion after birth.","PeriodicalId":74306,"journal":{"name":"Newborn (Clarksville, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Low-lying Umbilical Venous Catheters are not Always Associated with Increased Complications\",\"authors\":\"S. Joghee, M. Kamaluddeen, A. Soraisham\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) are frequently used for clinical care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Umbilical venous catheters cannot always be positioned perfectly in the inferior vena cava, and low catheters have to be used until a more stable peripherally inserted central catheter can be placed after ruling-out early onset sepsis. There are concerns that low UVCs may be associated with complications such as infection, extravasation, and thrombosis. Objectives: To determine whether UVC complications were associated with (1) low positioning of the catheter tip and (2) the postnatal age at insertion. Methods: We examined a retrospective cohort of infants with UVCs in a tertiary NICU. Neonates with major congenital anomalies, hydrops fetalis, prenatally diagnosed cardiac arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, or ascites were excluded. The position of UVCs is considered as optimum if its tip is seen on radiographs at the level between 8th and 10th thoracic vertebrae (T8–T10), to be low if below T10, and high if above T8. The primary outcome was UVC-related complications resulting in early removal of catheter. We compared the rates of UVC-related complications resulting in removal of UVCs with tips in normal (T8–T10) vs low-lying (below T10) positions at the time of insertion. We also examined the impact of postnatal age, before or after 12 hours, and the frequency of the UVC-related complication. Results: Of the 919 eligible infants, UVC tips were located optimally in 433 (47%) and were low in 415 (45%). The UVC was positioned at an abnormally high position in 71 (8%) infants. Of the 919 infants, UVC-related complication was seen in 54 (5.9%) infants. Low-lying UVCs were removed due to complications in 27 of 415 (6.5%) compared with 20 of 433 (4.6%) optimally position catheters [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.62–2.17)]. High-placed UVCs were associated with a higher rate of cardiac complications (aOR = 6.09, 95% CI [2.03–18.28]) compared with optimally position UVCs. There was also no difference in UVC-related complications between early and late insertion of UVC (6.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.34). Conclusions: The frequency of complications and consequent need for removal did not differ in UVCs with a tip position traditionally perceived to be optimal or low or by the time of insertion after birth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Newborn (Clarksville, Md.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Newborn (Clarksville, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Newborn (Clarksville, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:脐带静脉导管(UVCs)经常用于新生儿重症监护室(NICU)的临床护理。脐静脉导管不能总是完美地放置在下腔静脉中,必须使用低位导管,直到在排除早期败血症后可以放置更稳定的外周插入中心导管。有人担心,低紫外线可能与感染、外渗和血栓形成等并发症有关。目的:确定紫外线并发症是否与(1)导管尖端位置低和(2)插入时的出生后年龄有关。方法:我们对三级新生儿重症监护室中患有紫外线的婴儿进行了回顾性队列研究。排除患有严重先天性畸形、胎儿水肿、产前诊断心律失常、心包积液或腹水的新生儿。如果在第8和第10胸椎(T8–T10)之间的射线照片上看到UVCs的尖端,则UVCs的位置被认为是最佳的,如果低于T10则为低,如果高于T8则为高。主要结果是UVC相关并发症导致导管提前取出。我们比较了插入时尖端处于正常(T8–T10)位置与低洼(T10以下)位置的UVC相关并发症导致UVC去除的发生率。我们还检查了出生后年龄、12小时之前或之后的影响,以及紫外线相关并发症的频率。结果:在919名符合条件的婴儿中,433名(47%)婴儿的紫外线尖端位置最佳,415名(45%)婴儿的UVC尖端位置较低。71名(8%)婴儿的紫外线处于异常高的位置。919名婴儿中,54名(5.9%)婴儿出现紫外线相关并发症。415根导管中有27根(6.5%)因并发症切除了低位紫外线,而433根导管中的20根(4.6%)为最佳位置[调整比值比(aOR)=1.16;95%置信区间(CI):(0.62–2.17)]。与最佳位置紫外线相比,高位紫外线与更高的心脏并发症发生率(aOR=6.09,95%CI[2.03–18.28])相关。紫外线相关并发症在早期和晚期植入之间也没有差异(6.3%vs 4.7%,p=0.34)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Low-lying Umbilical Venous Catheters are not Always Associated with Increased Complications
Introduction: Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) are frequently used for clinical care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Umbilical venous catheters cannot always be positioned perfectly in the inferior vena cava, and low catheters have to be used until a more stable peripherally inserted central catheter can be placed after ruling-out early onset sepsis. There are concerns that low UVCs may be associated with complications such as infection, extravasation, and thrombosis. Objectives: To determine whether UVC complications were associated with (1) low positioning of the catheter tip and (2) the postnatal age at insertion. Methods: We examined a retrospective cohort of infants with UVCs in a tertiary NICU. Neonates with major congenital anomalies, hydrops fetalis, prenatally diagnosed cardiac arrhythmias, pericardial effusion, or ascites were excluded. The position of UVCs is considered as optimum if its tip is seen on radiographs at the level between 8th and 10th thoracic vertebrae (T8–T10), to be low if below T10, and high if above T8. The primary outcome was UVC-related complications resulting in early removal of catheter. We compared the rates of UVC-related complications resulting in removal of UVCs with tips in normal (T8–T10) vs low-lying (below T10) positions at the time of insertion. We also examined the impact of postnatal age, before or after 12 hours, and the frequency of the UVC-related complication. Results: Of the 919 eligible infants, UVC tips were located optimally in 433 (47%) and were low in 415 (45%). The UVC was positioned at an abnormally high position in 71 (8%) infants. Of the 919 infants, UVC-related complication was seen in 54 (5.9%) infants. Low-lying UVCs were removed due to complications in 27 of 415 (6.5%) compared with 20 of 433 (4.6%) optimally position catheters [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.62–2.17)]. High-placed UVCs were associated with a higher rate of cardiac complications (aOR = 6.09, 95% CI [2.03–18.28]) compared with optimally position UVCs. There was also no difference in UVC-related complications between early and late insertion of UVC (6.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.34). Conclusions: The frequency of complications and consequent need for removal did not differ in UVCs with a tip position traditionally perceived to be optimal or low or by the time of insertion after birth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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