Rovira Lucas, Aguilar Gerardo, Cuñat Alberto, Belda Francisco J
Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avd. Blasco Ibañez n°17, Valencia, 46010 Spain.
Radiology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avd. Blasco Ibañez n°17, Valencia, 46010 Spain.
Ann Intensive Care. 2015 Jan 16;5:1. doi: 10.1186/s13613-014-0041-9. eCollection 2015.
The purpose of the study was to assess blood flow in the upper limb arteries after prolonged catheterization with long radial artery catheters (LRC) which reach the subclavian artery compared to catheterization with standard short radial artery catheters (SRC) and a group of upper limb flow without any catheter placement (NOCATH), with both SRC and NOCATH as control groups.
Prospective observational study with 20 patients admitted to ICU (40 upper limbs) with LRC and/or SRC inserted >48 h for hemodynamic monitoring. More than 45 days after catheter withdrawal, patients underwent a Doppler ultrasound study of both upper limbs. Arterial flows of arms with LRC (FlowLRC) were compared with arterial flows of arms with SRC (FlowSRC) and those without any catheter (FlowNOCATH).
Flow in the ulnar, brachial, and subclavian arteries did not show any significant difference between the two types of catheters. The only significant difference was in the radial arteries, showing a lower mean flow in the arms with LRC than in the arms with SRC (2.2 vs. 8.5 cc/min; p = 0.041). Flow reduction in the radial artery (74%) in the arms with LRC compared to the SRC arms showed a tendency to increase ulnar flow as a compensatory mechanism. None of the patients with LRC included in our study had any ischemic events, in spite of observing complete flow occlusion in three radial arteries (18%) from the Doppler study.
In this sample, the use of PiCCO long radial catheters reaching the subclavian artery did not produce chronic significant changes in brachial or subclavian flows. However, LRC produces a significant reduction in radial flow and a tendency to increase ulnar flow. When comparing these blood flow changes with those produced by SRC use, only the radial flow reduction was significantly lower, whereas the other arterial flow changes did not significantly differ.
本研究的目的是评估与使用标准短桡动脉导管(SRC)进行导管插入术以及一组未进行任何导管放置的上肢血流(NOCATH,作为对照组)相比,使用可到达锁骨下动脉的长桡动脉导管(LRC)进行长时间导管插入术后上肢动脉的血流情况。SRC组和NOCATH组均作为对照组。
对20例入住重症监护病房(ICU)且插入LRC和/或SRC超过48小时以进行血流动力学监测的患者进行前瞻性观察研究。在拔除导管45天以上后,对患者的双上肢进行多普勒超声检查。将插入LRC的手臂的动脉血流(FlowLRC)与插入SRC的手臂的动脉血流(FlowSRC)以及未插入任何导管的手臂的动脉血流(FlowNOCATH)进行比较。
两种类型的导管在尺动脉、肱动脉和锁骨下动脉的血流方面未显示出任何显著差异。唯一显著的差异在于桡动脉,插入LRC的手臂的平均血流低于插入SRC的手臂(2.2 vs. 8.5毫升/分钟;p = 0.041)。与插入SRC的手臂相比,插入LRC的手臂的桡动脉血流减少了74%,这显示出作为一种代偿机制,尺动脉血流有增加的趋势。尽管在多普勒研究中观察到三条桡动脉(18%)出现完全血流阻塞,但本研究纳入的使用LRC的患者均未发生任何缺血事件。
在本样本中,使用可到达锁骨下动脉的PiCCO长桡动脉导管并未对肱动脉或锁骨下动脉血流产生慢性显著变化。然而,LRC会导致桡动脉血流显著减少以及尺动脉血流有增加的趋势。将这些血流变化与使用SRC所产生的血流变化进行比较时,只有桡动脉血流减少显著更低,而其他动脉血流变化并无显著差异。