Ultrasound-guided vascular catheterization in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile continuous circulation veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or ventricular assist device support

M. Laimoud, M. Alanazi
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided vascular catheterization in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile continuous circulation veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or ventricular assist device support","authors":"M. Laimoud, M. Alanazi","doi":"10.4103/roaic.roaic_8_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Vascular access can be challenging in patients with obesity, impalpable pulsations, hemodynamic instability, thrombocytopenia, and coagulopathy. Our aim was to study the clinical effectiveness of vascular ultrasound (US) in arterial and venous catheterizations in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile circulation admitted at cardiac critical care units and to compare with the landmark techniques. Patients and methods This retrospective study included adult patients from January 2015 to January 2019 who had been admitted to the adult cardiac critical care unit with left ventricular assist device or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and required vascular access. Results In 152 critically ill patients, 292 vascular catheters were inserted. The first-attempt success was achieved in 77.9 versus 34.6% (P=0.001) and the whole procedural success was 100 versus 67.5% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. The number of attempts was 1.7±0.6 versus 1.2±0.4 (P=0.001) and the complications occurred in 2.5 versus 21.2% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Jugular catheterization was done in 42.9 versus 19.3% (P=0.001), while subclavian cannulation was done in 5 versus 42.3% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Iatrogenic pneumothorax happened in 0 versus 3.1% (P=0.001), accidental puncture of the adjacent artery happened in 0 versus 14.7% (P=0.001), and hematoma formation happened in 2.5 versus 9% (P=0.03) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Conclusion Arterial and venous catheterizations guided by US in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile circulation and unstable hemodynamics were associated with higher success and more safety compared with the landmark techniques.","PeriodicalId":151256,"journal":{"name":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Opinion in Anesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/roaic.roaic_8_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Vascular access can be challenging in patients with obesity, impalpable pulsations, hemodynamic instability, thrombocytopenia, and coagulopathy. Our aim was to study the clinical effectiveness of vascular ultrasound (US) in arterial and venous catheterizations in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile circulation admitted at cardiac critical care units and to compare with the landmark techniques. Patients and methods This retrospective study included adult patients from January 2015 to January 2019 who had been admitted to the adult cardiac critical care unit with left ventricular assist device or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and required vascular access. Results In 152 critically ill patients, 292 vascular catheters were inserted. The first-attempt success was achieved in 77.9 versus 34.6% (P=0.001) and the whole procedural success was 100 versus 67.5% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. The number of attempts was 1.7±0.6 versus 1.2±0.4 (P=0.001) and the complications occurred in 2.5 versus 21.2% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Jugular catheterization was done in 42.9 versus 19.3% (P=0.001), while subclavian cannulation was done in 5 versus 42.3% (P=0.001) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Iatrogenic pneumothorax happened in 0 versus 3.1% (P=0.001), accidental puncture of the adjacent artery happened in 0 versus 14.7% (P=0.001), and hematoma formation happened in 2.5 versus 9% (P=0.03) in the US and landmark groups, respectively. Conclusion Arterial and venous catheterizations guided by US in critically ill patients with nonpulsatile circulation and unstable hemodynamics were associated with higher success and more safety compared with the landmark techniques.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超声引导血管插管在无搏动连续循环静脉-动脉体外膜氧合或心室辅助装置支持的危重患者中的应用
背景:对于肥胖、脉搏不可见、血流动力学不稳定、血小板减少和凝血功能障碍患者,血管通路可能具有挑战性。我们的目的是研究血管超声(US)在心脏重症监护病房非搏动循环危重患者动脉和静脉导管置入中的临床效果,并与标志性技术进行比较。患者和方法本回顾性研究纳入2015年1月至2019年1月在成人心脏重症监护病房接受左心室辅助装置或静脉-动脉体外膜氧合并需要血管通路的成人患者。结果152例危重患者共插入血管导管292根。在美国组和里程碑组中,首次尝试的成功率分别为77.9比34.6% (P=0.001),整个手术的成功率分别为100比67.5% (P=0.001)。尝试次数分别为1.7±0.6次和1.2±0.4次(P=0.001),并发症发生率分别为2.5%和21.2% (P=0.001)。在美国和里程碑组中,颈静脉插管的比例分别为42.9和19.3% (P=0.001),锁骨下插管的比例分别为5和42.3% (P=0.001)。医源性气胸发生率为0比3.1% (P=0.001),意外穿刺邻近动脉发生率为0比14.7% (P=0.001),血肿形成发生率为2.5%比9% (P=0.03)。结论与具有里程碑意义的技术相比,US引导下对无搏动循环、血流动力学不稳定的危重患者行动、静脉置管成功率更高,安全性更高。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of combined pulsed radiofrequency and steroid injection to the dorsal root ganglion in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia: a prospective randomized clinical trial Sacrococcygeal local anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for pilonidal sinus surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study Role of enteral metoprolol tartrate on hemodynamics and clinical outcomes of septic shock patients of various pretargeted heart rate groups Prediction of protective lung tidal volume using the ulna length in Egyptian adults Characteristics and clinical outcomes of critically ill pregnant patients with COVID-19 disease
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1