Are single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs suitable for hemodynamic assessment by trans-pulmonary thermodilution? A pilot study.
Cardiac output
Centrally inserted central catheter
Hemodynamic monitoring
Intensive care unit
Peripherally inserted central catheter
Trans-pulmonary thermodilution
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 12 2020
07 12 2020
Historique:
received:
15
07
2020
accepted:
26
11
2020
entrez:
7
12
2020
pubmed:
8
12
2020
medline:
8
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Single-lumen 4Fr or double-lumen 5Fr power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are not accurate for trans-pulmonary thermodilution (TPTD), since they overestimate cardiac index and other TPTD-derived parameters when compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) because of the smaller size of their lumen. We hypothesize that PICCs with larger lumen size may be reliable for the cardiac index assessment using the TPTD. This is a single-centre, prospective method-comparison study that included adult patients admitted in ICU who required a calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000™) for circulatory shock and had both PICC and CICC in place. We compared TPTD measurements via single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr polyurethane power injectable PICCs with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (reference standard). To rule out biases related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system. We performed Bland-Altman analysis accounting for multiple observations per patient. A total of 320 measurements were performed in 15 patients. During the manual phase, the cardiac index measured with either single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs were comparable with cardiac index measured with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (3.2 ± 1.04 vs. 3.2 ± 1.06 L/min/m During hemodynamic monitoring with TPTD, both single-lumen 5Fr PICCs and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs can be used for cold fluid bolus injection as an alternative to CICC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04241926).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Single-lumen 4Fr or double-lumen 5Fr power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are not accurate for trans-pulmonary thermodilution (TPTD), since they overestimate cardiac index and other TPTD-derived parameters when compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) because of the smaller size of their lumen. We hypothesize that PICCs with larger lumen size may be reliable for the cardiac index assessment using the TPTD.
METHODS
This is a single-centre, prospective method-comparison study that included adult patients admitted in ICU who required a calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000™) for circulatory shock and had both PICC and CICC in place. We compared TPTD measurements via single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr polyurethane power injectable PICCs with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (reference standard). To rule out biases related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system. We performed Bland-Altman analysis accounting for multiple observations per patient.
RESULTS
A total of 320 measurements were performed in 15 patients. During the manual phase, the cardiac index measured with either single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs were comparable with cardiac index measured with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (3.2 ± 1.04 vs. 3.2 ± 1.06 L/min/m
CONCLUSIONS
During hemodynamic monitoring with TPTD, both single-lumen 5Fr PICCs and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs can be used for cold fluid bolus injection as an alternative to CICC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04241926).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33284392
doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00785-2
pii: 10.1186/s13613-020-00785-2
pmc: PMC7720030
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04241926', 'NCT04241926']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
165Subventions
Organisme : Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
ID : D.1-2017
Pays : International
Références
J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571-82
pubmed: 17613642
J Physiol. 1897 Nov 20;22(3):159-83
pubmed: 16992399
Ann Vasc Surg. 2006 Sep;20(5):577-81
pubmed: 16871437
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002 Jan;13(1):77-81
pubmed: 11788698
BMC Anesthesiol. 2010 Oct 12;10:18
pubmed: 20939919
Crit Care. 2012 Feb 04;16(1):R21
pubmed: 22305301
Crit Care Med. 2000 Dec;28(12):3833-6
pubmed: 11153622
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011 Oct;61(4):281-7
pubmed: 22110879
Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2017;7(4):410-415
pubmed: 29200975
J Vasc Access. 2017 Jul 14;18(4):273-278
pubmed: 28665469
J Clin Monit Comput. 2012 Apr;26(2):85-90
pubmed: 22290064
Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Dec;22(6):630-42
pubmed: 21705434
J Clin Monit Comput. 1999 Feb;15(2):85-91
pubmed: 12578081
J Vasc Access. 2011 Oct-Dec;12(4):280-91
pubmed: 21667458
World J Crit Care Med. 2014 Nov 04;3(4):80-94
pubmed: 25374804
Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct;47(10):1356-1361
pubmed: 31356470