Ultrasound Guidance for Central Venous Catheterization: A Step Further to Prevent Malposition of Central Venous Catheter before Radiographic Confirmation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Midha D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5538097 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Long-term cuffed hemodialysis catheters are being increasingly used in the management of patients with chronic kidney disease. These tunneled catheters are available in different types and characteristics. Patients undergo imaging, primarily chest radiographs to confirm the position of the catheter tip. It is essential to be aware of the normal imaging appearances of these catheters as they may simulate pathological appearance due to the shape of their tips. This knowledge will help avoid misdiagnosis and unnecessary medical interventions.
| S-EPMC6360840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEmerging evidence suggests that chest radiography (CXR) following central venous catheter (CVC) placement is unnecessary when point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used to confirm catheter position and exclude pneumothorax. However, few providers have adopted this practice, and it is unknown what contributing factors may play a role in this lack of adoption, such as ultrasound experience. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS to confirm CVC position and exclude a pneumothorax after brief education and training of nonexperts.MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study in a single academic medical center to determine the diagnostic characteristics of a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after brief training performed by POCUS nonexperts. POCUS nonexperts (emergency medicine senior residents and critical care fellows) independently performed a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after a 30-minute didactic training. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol for malposition and pneumothorax detection. Secondary outcomes were efficiency and feasibility of adequate image acquisition, adjudicated by POCUS experts.ResultsTwenty-six POCUS nonexperts collected data on 190 patients in the final analysis. There were five (2.5%) CVC malpositions and six (3%) pneumothoraxes on CXR. The positive likelihood ratios of POCUS for malposition detection and pneumothorax were 12.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.26 to 46.69) and 3.41 (95% CI = 0.51 to 22.76), respectively. The accuracy of POCUS for pneumothorax detection compared to CXR was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.96) and the sensitivity was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.64). The median (interquartile range) time for CVC confirmation was lower for POCUS (9 minutes [8.5-9.5 minutes]) compared to CXR (29 minutes [1-269 minutes]; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.01). Adequate protocol image acquisition was achieved in 76% of the patients.ConclusionThirty-minute training of POCUS in nonexperts demonstrates adequate diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and feasibility of POCUS-guided CVC position confirmation, but not exclusion of pneumothorax.
| S-EPMC8173448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Percutaneous Central Venous Catheter (CVC) insertion using internal jugular and Subclavian veins routes is common procedure for all intensive care admitted patients and some patients in the ward as demand arises in central and referral hospitals of Botswana. This is a case report of a patient on whom a third attempt of re-inserting a CVC for fluid and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was made. X-ray showed that left Subclavian inserted catheter was mis-directed to internal jugular vein of the same side creating discomfort to the patient. Ultra sound is recommended for routine investigation to confirm proper Central venous catheter placement as it can reduce failure, minimize complication and reduce cost of treatment.
| S-EPMC5554667 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundUltrasonographic guidance is widely used for central venous catheterization. Several studies have revealed that ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization increases the rate of success during the first attempt and reduces the procedural duration when compared to the anatomical landmark-guided insertion technique, which could result in protection from infectious complications. However, the effect of ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization on catheter-related bloodstream infections remains unclear. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the value of ultrasound guidance in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections and catheter colonization associated with central venous catheterization.MethodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and MEDLINE (via PubMed) were searched up to May 9, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided and anatomical landmark-guided insertion techniques for central venous catheterization. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs. A meta-analysis was performed for catheter-related bloodstream infections and catheter colonization, as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.ResultsFour RCTs involving 1268 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization was associated with a slightly lower incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-1.32) and was not associated with a lower incidence of catheter colonization (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.57-3.26).ConclusionUltrasound-guided central venous catheterization might reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Additional RCTs are necessary to further evaluate the value of ultrasound guidance in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections with central venous catheterization.
| S-EPMC9533546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUltrasound guidance for central venous catheterization is a commonly used alternative to the conventional landmark method. Because from the German perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance is unclear, this study examined the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance versus the landmark method for adults undergoing a central venous catheterization.MethodsA decision-tree based model was built to estimate the costs of averted catheter-related complications. Clinical data (e.g. arterial puncture, failed attempts) were obtained from a Cochrane review and a randomized controlled trial, whilst information about cost parameters were taken from a German hospital of maximum care. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To assess the parameter uncertainty, several sensitivity analyses were performed (deterministic, probabilistic and with regard to the model structure).ResultsOur analysis revealed that ultrasound guidance resulted in fewer complications per person (0.04 versus 0.17 for the landmark method) and was less expensive (€51 versus €230 for the landmark method). Results were robust to changes in the model parameters and in the model structure. Whilst our model population reflected approximately 49% of adults undergoing a central venous catheterization cannulation per year, structural sensitivity analyses (e.g. extending the study cohort to patients at higher baseline risk of complications, pediatric patients, or using real-time/indirect catheterization) indicated the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound guidance for a broader spectrum of patients. The results should be interpreted by considering the assumptions (e.g. target population) and approximations (e.g. cost parameters) underpinning the model.ConclusionsUltrasound guidance for central venous catheterization averts more catheter-related complications and may save the resources of the German Statutory Health Insurance compared with landmark method.
| S-EPMC6456944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Although routine chest radiographs (CXR) to verify correct central venous catheter (CVC) position and exclude pneumothorax are commonly performed, emerging evidence suggests that this practice can be replaced by point of care ultrasound (POCUS). POCUS is advantageous over CXR because it avoids radiation while verifying correct placement and lack of pneumothorax without delay. We hypothesize that a knowledge translation gap exists in this area. We aim to describe the current clinical practice regarding POCUS alone for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion as compared with chest radiography. METHODS:We used a modified Dillman technique to conduct a brief web-based survey to Critical Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine physicians (targeted group of early adopters) evaluating the current practice related to CVC position confirmation and PTX exclusion via CXR or POCUS. RESULTS:Of 200 post-training clinicians contacted, 136 (68%) responded to the survey. For routine CVC confirmation and PTX evaluation, 50.7% of Critical Care Medicine physicians and 65.4% of Emergency Medicine physicians reported using CXR alone while 49.3% and 33.1% respectively reported using CXR and ultrasound together. Though 84.6% of clinicians use ultrasound for CVC insertion "most of the time" or "always," none use ultrasound alone for CVC position confirmation, and only 1% has used ultrasound alone for PTX exclusion. CONCLUSIONS:Though data support its utility and advantages for POCUS as a sole modality for CVC position confirmation and PTX evaluation, POCUS is rarely used for this indication. We identified several perceived barriers toward widespread utilization suggesting areas for dissemination and implementation strategy development that will benefit patient care practices.
| S-EPMC6347536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCentral venous catheterization is a complex procedural skill. This study evaluates existing published tools on this procedure and systematically summarizes key competencies for the assessment of this technical skill.MethodsUsing a previously published meta-analysis search strategy, we conducted a systematic review of published assessment tools using the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent investigators abstracted information on tool content and characteristics.ResultsTwenty-five studies were identified assessing a total of 147 items. Tools used for assessment at the bedside (clinical tools) had a higher % of items representing "preparation" and "infection control" than tools used for assessment using simulation (67 ± 26% vs. 32 ± 26%; p = 0.003 for "preparation" and 60 ± 41% vs. 11 ± 17%; p = 0.002 for "infection control", respectively). Simulation tools had a higher % of items on "procedural competence" than clinical tools (60 ± 36% vs. 17 ± 15%; p = 0.002). Items in the domains of "Team working" and "Communication and working with the patient" were frequently under-represented.ConclusionThis study presents a comprehensive review of existing checklist items for the assessment of central venous catheterization. Although many key competencies are currently assessed by existing published tools, some domains may be under-represented by select tools.
| S-EPMC3909608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Central venous catheterization is a basic skill applicable in various medical fields. However, because it may occasionally cause lethal complications, we developed this practical guide that will help a novice operator successfully perform central venous catheterization using ultrasound guidance. The focus of this practical guide is patient safety. It details the fundamental knowledge and techniques that are indispensable for performing ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization (other choices of indwelling catheters, subclavian, axillary, and femoral venous catheter, or peripherally inserted central venous catheter are also described in alternatives).
| S-EPMC7223734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite evidence suggesting that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is faster and non-inferior for confirming position and excluding pneumothorax after central venous catheter (CVC) placement compared to traditional radiography, millions of chest radiographs (CXR) are performed annually for this purpose. Whether the use of POCUS results in cost savings compared to CXR is less clear but could represent a relative advantage in implementation efforts. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the labor cost difference for POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC position confirmation practices.MethodsWe developed a model to evaluate the per patient difference in labor cost between POCUS-guided vs CXR-guided CVC confirmation at our local urban, tertiary academic institution. We used internal cost data from our institution to populate the variables in our model.ResultsThe estimated labor cost per patient was $18.48 using CXR compared to $14.66 for POCUS, resulting in a net direct cost savings of $3.82 (21%) per patient using POCUS for CVC confirmation.ConclusionIn this study comparing the labor costs of two approaches for CVC confirmation, the more efficient alternative (POCUS-guided) is not more expensive than traditional CXR. Performing an economic analysis framed in terms of labor costs and work efficiency may influence stakeholders and facilitate earlier adoption of POCUS for CVC confirmation.
| S-EPMC9541994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionChest radiography (CXR) is commonly used to confirm the proper placement of above-diaphragm central venous catheters (CVCs) and to detect associated complications. Recent studies have shown that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has better sensitivity and is faster than CXR for these purposes. We were interested in documenting how often emergency medicine and critical care practitioners perform POCUS to confirm proper CVC positioning as well as their confidence in performing it.MethodsWe surveyed members of our state's chapters of the College of Emergency Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine between April and December 2018. Our primary outcome was the percentage of providers who would agree to perform only POCUS, forgoing CXR, for confirmation of CVC position. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to measure associations between demographic, clinical information, and outcomes.ResultsOne hundred thirty-six providers participated (a 25% participation rate). Their specialties were as follows: emergency medicine, 75%; critical care, 13%; and emergency medicine/critical care, 11%. Thirty-one percent would use POCUS only for CVC confirmation, while 42% were confident in performing POCUS for this purpose. Multivariable logistic regressions showed that performing more non-procedural ultrasound examinations was associated with a higher likelihood of agreeing to perform POCUS only (OR, 2.9; 95% CI: 1.3-6.3). Forty-six percent of relevant comments suggested more training to increase the use of POCUS.ConclusionParticipants in this study did not frequently use POCUS for CVC confirmation. Designers of training curricula should consider including more instruction in the use of POCUS to confirm proper CVC placement and to detect complications.
| S-EPMC7002808 | biostudies-literature