Risk factors influence the arterial line patency in ICU-bound patients during COVID-19 pandemic: An observational cohort study

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2023-05-04 DOI:10.1080/11101849.2023.2209411
Hamed Elgendy, A. Ganaw, Vipin Kumari, Vijay Settu, P. Chandra, Hanaa Nafady-Hego, Mohamad Hilani, H. Ismail, Mohamed Elkateeb
{"title":"Risk factors influence the arterial line patency in ICU-bound patients during COVID-19 pandemic: An observational cohort study","authors":"Hamed Elgendy, A. Ganaw, Vipin Kumari, Vijay Settu, P. Chandra, Hanaa Nafady-Hego, Mohamad Hilani, H. Ismail, Mohamed Elkateeb","doi":"10.1080/11101849.2023.2209411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background There were increased claims of thrombotic events in ICU-bound patients with COVID-19. We designed this observational study to examine implementation of systemic anti-coagulation on arterial catheter patency and its failure and to identify risk factors for arterial catheter failure. Methods A total of 245 COVID-19 subjects were included in this observational study, 48 patients in the non-systemic, (Non-SA), (Prophylactic) anticoagulation cohort, and 197 patients in the systemic (SA), (Therapeutic) anticoagulation group. The first arterial line inserted on ICU admission for every patient was monitored regarding its duration of the patency, number and location of consecutive arterial lines inserted during stay in ICU. Demographics of patients, ICU parameters and risk factors for arterial line failure were followed and analyzed. Results The percentage of arterial line failure was significantly higher in Non-SA group, 45.8% when compared to SA group, 25.9%, P = 0.007. The patients with arterial line failure exhibited higher D-dimer, co-morbidities, diabetic patients, received aspirin and mortality than the patent group, respectively, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001. This group also received higher sedation and prone position on mechanical ventilation and higher vasopressors, respectively, p = 0.034, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001 when compared to patent group. They had prolonged length of stay in ICU and hospital, respectively, p = 0.001 and p = 0.042. The cumulative incidence of index arterial line failure (Log-rank test 6.95, P = 0.008) with overall percentage was significantly lower in SA group (25.9%) compared to non-SA group (45.8%), respectively, P = 0.007. On Cox-proportional hazard multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of arterial line failure increased platelets level (HR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.001), use of ultrasound use in arterial line insertion (HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.75-12.56, P = 0.002), and prone position in ICU (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.09-3.42, P = 0.023). Conclusion We observed three independent predictors of arterial line failure including platelets level and ultrasound use during arterial catheter insertion and prone position in ICU. Systemic anticoagulation was associated with more patency of arterial catheter than prophylactic therapy group.","PeriodicalId":11437,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11101849.2023.2209411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background There were increased claims of thrombotic events in ICU-bound patients with COVID-19. We designed this observational study to examine implementation of systemic anti-coagulation on arterial catheter patency and its failure and to identify risk factors for arterial catheter failure. Methods A total of 245 COVID-19 subjects were included in this observational study, 48 patients in the non-systemic, (Non-SA), (Prophylactic) anticoagulation cohort, and 197 patients in the systemic (SA), (Therapeutic) anticoagulation group. The first arterial line inserted on ICU admission for every patient was monitored regarding its duration of the patency, number and location of consecutive arterial lines inserted during stay in ICU. Demographics of patients, ICU parameters and risk factors for arterial line failure were followed and analyzed. Results The percentage of arterial line failure was significantly higher in Non-SA group, 45.8% when compared to SA group, 25.9%, P = 0.007. The patients with arterial line failure exhibited higher D-dimer, co-morbidities, diabetic patients, received aspirin and mortality than the patent group, respectively, p = 0.002, p = 0.002, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001. This group also received higher sedation and prone position on mechanical ventilation and higher vasopressors, respectively, p = 0.034, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001 when compared to patent group. They had prolonged length of stay in ICU and hospital, respectively, p = 0.001 and p = 0.042. The cumulative incidence of index arterial line failure (Log-rank test 6.95, P = 0.008) with overall percentage was significantly lower in SA group (25.9%) compared to non-SA group (45.8%), respectively, P = 0.007. On Cox-proportional hazard multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of arterial line failure increased platelets level (HR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.001), use of ultrasound use in arterial line insertion (HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.75-12.56, P = 0.002), and prone position in ICU (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.09-3.42, P = 0.023). Conclusion We observed three independent predictors of arterial line failure including platelets level and ultrasound use during arterial catheter insertion and prone position in ICU. Systemic anticoagulation was associated with more patency of arterial catheter than prophylactic therapy group.
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
危险因素影响COVID-19大流行期间icu患者动脉线通畅:一项观察性队列研究
背景:在重症监护病房内的COVID-19患者中,血栓事件的发生率有所增加。我们设计了这项观察性研究,以检查全身抗凝对动脉导管通畅及其失败的实施情况,并确定动脉导管失败的危险因素。方法本观察性研究共纳入245例COVID-19患者,其中非全身性(Non-SA)(预防性)抗凝组48例,全身性(SA)(治疗性)抗凝组197例。监测每位患者在ICU入院时插入的第一条动脉线的通畅时间、住院期间插入的连续动脉线的数量和位置。对患者的人口学特征、ICU参数及动脉线衰竭的危险因素进行跟踪分析。结果非SA组动脉线衰竭发生率明显高于SA组,分别为45.8%和25.9%,P = 0.007。动脉线衰竭患者的d -二聚体、合并症、糖尿病患者、阿司匹林服用和死亡率分别高于专利组,p = 0.002、p = 0.002、p < 0.0001、p < 0.0001和p < 0.0001。与专利组相比,该组镇静、俯卧位机械通气、血管加压药物均高于专利组,p = 0.034、p < 0.0001、p < 0.0001、p < 0.0001。ICU和住院时间分别延长,p = 0.001和p = 0.042。SA组的累加动脉线衰竭发生率(Log-rank检验6.95,P = 0.008)与总百分比相比(25.9%)显著低于非SA组(45.8%),P = 0.007。在Cox-proportional hazard multivariate regression analysis中,动脉线衰竭的独立预测因子增加血小板水平(HR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P = 0.001),超声在动脉线插入中的使用(HR 4.68, 95% CI 1.75-12.56, P = 0.002),以及ICU俯卧位(HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.09-3.42, P = 0.023)。结论观察到血小板水平、动脉导管置入时超声使用和ICU俯卧位三个独立的预测动脉线衰竭的因素。全身抗凝治疗组动脉导管通畅率高于预防治疗组。
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
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
Intrathecal levo-bupivacaine versus hyperbaric bupivacaine for inguinal hernia repairs in ex-preterm infants: A double blinded randomized prospective study Comparison of two different methods as reliable predictors of successful caudal block in children Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol on early cognitive functions in elderly patients after lumbar disc surgery Muscle wasting assessed by ultrasound versus scoring systems as early predictor of outcomes of intensive care unit stay in critically ill patients Posterior quadratus lumborum versus caudal epidural block for perioperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing upper abdominal surgeries: Arandomized, double-blind trial
×
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