Suppr超能文献

中心静脉压测量:外周静脉置入导管与中心静脉置入导管的比较

Central venous pressure measurements: peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters.

作者信息

Black I H, Blosser S A, Murray W B

机构信息

Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey 17033-0850, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2000 Dec;28(12):3833-6. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200012000-00014.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether central venous pressure measurements taken from a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) correlate with those from a centrally inserted central catheter (CICC).

DESIGN

A pilot bench study followed by a prospective, non-blinded, clinical comparison.

SETTING

A 16-bed medical coronary intensive care unit and a 30-bed surgical intensive care unit at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Seven surgical intensive care unit patients and five medical coronary intensive care unit patients.

INTERVENTIONS

During the bench study, a simple manometer system was set up to test the catheters. During the clinical study, measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly. Positions of the catheter tips in the chest were verified by radiography. Paired central venous pressure measurements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary artery catheter CICCs, all with continuous pressure infusion devices.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen, have a higher inherent resistance, which can be overcome with a continuous infusion device. During the clinical study, three to 12 paired, digital, central venous pressure measurements were recorded from each of 12 patients for a total of 77 data pairs. Measurements were recorded at end-expiration. Mean central venous pressure from the CICCs was 11 + 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 + 7 mm Hg. PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99) for all data pairs. Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central venous pressure by 1.0 + 3.2 mm Hg (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and to follow trends in a clinical setting when used with a pressure infusion device to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC. Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinically insignificant.

摘要

目的

确定经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)所测中心静脉压与经中心静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(CICC)所测中心静脉压是否相关。

设计

先进行一项初步的实验台研究,然后进行前瞻性、非盲法临床比较。

地点

一所大学医院的拥有16张床位的内科冠心病重症监护病房和拥有30张床位的外科重症监护病房。

患者

7名外科重症监护病房患者和5名内科冠心病重症监护病房患者。

干预措施

在实验台研究期间,设置一个简易压力计系统来测试导管。在临床研究期间,对同时留置CICC和PICC的患者记录中心静脉压测量值。通过X线检查确认导管尖端在胸部的位置。从19号双腔PICC以及7F、16号、18号和肺动脉导管CICC获取配对的中心静脉压测量值,所有导管均配有持续压力输注装置。

测量指标及主要结果

实验台研究表明,PICC因其长度更长、管腔更窄,具有更高的固有阻力,使用持续输注装置可克服这一阻力。在临床研究中,对12名患者每人记录3至12对数字化中心静脉压测量值,共77对数据。在呼气末记录测量值。CICC的平均中心静脉压为11±7mmHg,PICC的平均中心静脉压为12±7mmHg。所有数据对的PICC压力与CICC压力呈相关性(r = 0.99)。重复测量分析显示,PICC中心静脉压比CICC中心静脉压高1.0±3.2mmHg(p = 0.02)。

结论

当使用压力输注装置克服PICC的自然阻力时,PICC可用于在临床环境中测量中心静脉压并追踪其变化趋势。通过PICC记录的中心静脉压略高,但差异在临床上无显著意义。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验