Rethinking Intravenous Catheter Size and Location for Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography.
Administration, Intravenous
/ instrumentation
Adult
Aged
Catheters
Computed Tomography Angiography
/ instrumentation
Emergency Service, Hospital
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Probability
Pulmonary Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Pulmonary Embolism
/ diagnosis
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Journal
The western journal of emergency medicine
ISSN: 1936-9018
Titre abrégé: West J Emerg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101476450
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
13
09
2018
revised:
27
11
2018
accepted:
28
11
2018
entrez:
19
3
2019
pubmed:
19
3
2019
medline:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the test of choice for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED), but this test may be indeterminate for technical reasons such as inadequate contrast filling of the pulmonary arteries. Many hospitals have requirements for intravenous (IV) catheter size or location for CTPA studies to reduce the chances of inadequate filling, but there is a lack of clinical data to support these requirements. The objective of this study was to determine if a certain size or location of IV catheter used for contrast for CTPA is associated with an increased chance of suboptimal CTPA. This was a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent CTPA in the ED. A CTPA study was considered suboptimal if the radiology report indicated it was technically limited or inadequate to exclude a PE. The reason for the study being suboptimal, and the size and location of the IV catheter, were abstracted. We calculated the rate of inadequate contrast filling of the pulmonary vasculature and compared the rate for various IV catheter sizes and locations. In particular, we compared 20-gauge or larger IV catheters in the antecubital fossa or forearm to all other sizes and locations. A total of 19.3% of the 1500 CTPA reports reviewed met our criteria as suboptimal, and 51.6% of those were due to inadequate filling. Patients with a 20-gauge IV catheter or larger placed in the antecubital fossa or forearm had inadequate filling 9.2% of the time compared to 13.2% for patients who had smaller IVs or IVs in other locations (difference: 4.0% [95% confidence interval, -1.7%-9.7%]). There were also no statistically significant differences in the rates of inadequate filling when data were further stratified by IV catheter location and size. We did not detect any statistically significant differences in the rate of inadequate contrast filling based on IV catheter locations or sizes. While small differences not detected in this study may exist, it seems prudent to proceed with CTPA in patients with difficult IV access who need emergent imaging even if they have a small or distally located IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30881543
doi: 10.5811/westjem.2018.11.40930
pii: wjem-20-244
pmc: PMC6404715
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
244-249Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.
Références
J Thorac Imaging. 2004 Jan;19(1):1-7
pubmed: 14712124
Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):329-37
pubmed: 16183940
Emerg Med J. 2006 Mar;23(3):172-8
pubmed: 16498151
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2317-27
pubmed: 16738268
Rofo. 2009 Apr;181(4):355-61
pubmed: 19280548
J Emerg Med. 2013 Aug;45(2):182-5
pubmed: 23726677
Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;20(10):1033-40
pubmed: 24127707
Intern Med J. 2014 Sep;44(9):872-6
pubmed: 24942202
Respir Res. 2015 Mar 24;16:44
pubmed: 25890024
Iran J Radiol. 2015 Jul 22;12(3):e22383
pubmed: 26557282
Emerg Radiol. 2016 Dec;23(6):603-607
pubmed: 27465236
Emerg Radiol. 2017 Feb;24(1):105-108
pubmed: 27572932
Emerg Radiol. 2018 Oct;25(5):469-477
pubmed: 29749576
West J Emerg Med. 2018 Sep;19(5):808-812
pubmed: 30202491