Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011 Oct;61(4):281-7. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2011.61.4.281. Epub 2011 Oct 22.
Unlike its use during stable conditions, central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring from a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has not often been used in surgeries with significant hemodynamic alterations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of measuring PICC pressure (PICCP) as an alternative to measuring centrally inserted central catheter pressure (CICCP) in adult liver transplantation (LT) patients.
We measured PICCP and CICCP simultaneously during each main surgical period in adult LT. Statistical analysis was performed using simple linear regression analysis to observe whether changes in PICCP paralleled by simultaneous changes in CICCP. Correlation analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were used to determine the degree of agreement between the two devices. Differences were considered statistically significant when P values were less than 0.05.
A total of 1342 data pairs were collected from 35 patients. The PICCPs and CICCPs were highly correlated overall (r = 0.970, P < 0.001) as well as at each period measured. The differences among each period were not clinically significant (0.33 mmHg for pre-anhepatic, 0.32 mmHg for anhepatic, -0.15 mmHg for reperfusion, and -0.10 mmHg for neohepatic periods). The overall mean difference was 0.14 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.19) and PICCP tended to give a higher reading by between 0.09 and 0.19 mmHg overall. The limit of agreement was -1.74 to 2.02 overall.
These findings suggest that PICCP can be a reasonable alternative to CICCP in situations of dynamic systemic compliance and preload, as well as under stable hemodynamic conditions.
与稳定状态下的使用不同,中心静脉压(CVP)监测从外周插入的中心静脉导管(PICC)在有明显血流动力学改变的手术中并不常用。本研究旨在评估在成人肝移植(LT)患者中测量 PICC 压(PICCP)替代测量中心静脉插入的中心导管压(CICCP)的可行性。
我们在成人 LT 的每个主要手术期间同时测量 PICCP 和 CICCP。使用简单线性回归分析进行统计分析,观察 PICCP 的变化是否与 CICCP 的变化平行。使用相关分析和 Bland-Altman 分析来确定两种设备之间的一致性程度。当 P 值小于 0.05 时,认为差异具有统计学意义。
共从 35 名患者中收集了 1342 对数据。总体而言,PICCP 和 CICCP 高度相关(r = 0.970,P < 0.001),并且在每个测量期间也是如此。每个期间的差异在临床上并不显著(肝前 0.33mmHg,无肝 0.32mmHg,再灌注 -0.15mmHg,新肝期 -0.10mmHg)。总体平均差异为 0.14mmHg(95%置信区间:0.09-0.19),总体而言,PICCP 倾向于给出高 0.09 至 0.19mmHg 的读数。总体一致限为-1.74 至 2.02。
这些发现表明,在动态全身顺应性和前负荷以及稳定的血流动力学条件下,PICCP 可以作为 CICCP 的合理替代。