Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit of Emergency Department, Careggi Teaching Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Anesth Analg. 2010 Nov;111(5):1194-201. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f333c1. Epub 2010 Sep 9.
Despite evidence demonstrating improved safety with ultrasound-guided placement of central venous catheters (CVC) in comparison with the use of anatomical landmarks, ultrasound guidance is still not routinely used by all physicians when obtaining central venous access.
We report data pertaining to the placement of long-term CVCs in a 7-year period before and after ultrasound guidance was introduced. We included 3951 procedures (total of 1,642,402 catheter days) in our study: 1584 using the anatomical landmark method (landmark group, January 2000 to May 2003), and 2367 with ultrasound guidance (ultrasound group, June 2003 to May 2007). All procedures were performed by the same team of intensivists. Comparison criteria included procedural data, complications, patient's comfort, and perceptions. Variables were analyzed with Student's t test and χ(2) test. Multivariate analysis was performed according to the Cox proportional hazards regression model.
Using ultrasound guidance, we noted a significant reduction in procedure time in both port (mean difference 4.9 ± 0.4 minutes, confidence interval [CI] 4.1 to 5.7) and tunneled catheter (mean difference 2.4 ± 0.8 minutes, CI 0.9 to 3.8) placement. The landmark method was associated with an increased risk of overall perioperative complications (4.5, CI 3.6 to 5.6). Among disease entities, acute leukemia patients had a significantly higher risk of CVC-related infections (2.6, CI 2.1 to 3.8). On the basis of questionnaires submitted to patients from both groups, ultrasound guidance was associated with improved patient comfort and satisfaction.
Ultrasound guidance reduces complications and improves patient comfort. Further studies are needed to define whether acute leukemia patients should be considered a separate category with regard to the higher incidence of infections.
尽管有证据表明,与使用解剖学标志相比,超声引导下放置中心静脉导管(CVC)可提高安全性,但并非所有医生在获得中心静脉通路时都常规使用超声引导。
我们报告了在引入超声引导前后 7 年期间进行的长期 CVC 放置数据。我们的研究包括 3951 例操作(总计 1642402 个导管日):1584 例使用解剖学标志方法(标志组,2000 年 1 月至 2003 年 5 月),2367 例使用超声引导(超声组,2003 年 6 月至 2007 年 5 月)。所有操作均由同一组重症监护医生进行。比较标准包括操作数据、并发症、患者舒适度和认知。变量采用 Student's t 检验和 χ(2)检验进行分析。采用 Cox 比例风险回归模型进行多变量分析。
使用超声引导,我们注意到在端口(平均差异 4.9 ± 0.4 分钟,置信区间 [CI] 4.1 至 5.7)和隧道式导管(平均差异 2.4 ± 0.8 分钟,CI 0.9 至 3.8)放置方面,操作时间显著缩短。标志法与围手术期总并发症风险增加相关(4.5,CI 3.6 至 5.6)。在疾病实体中,急性白血病患者 CVC 相关感染的风险显著更高(2.6,CI 2.1 至 3.8)。根据来自两组患者的问卷,超声引导可提高患者舒适度和满意度。
超声引导可降低并发症发生率并提高患者舒适度。需要进一步研究来确定急性白血病患者是否应被视为感染发生率较高的单独类别。