Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
J Intensive Care Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):869-874. doi: 10.1177/0885066618795126. Epub 2018 Sep 19.
Central venous catheter (CVC) complication rates reflecting the application of modern insertion techniques to a clinically heterogeneous patient populations are needed to better understand procedural risk attributable to the 3 common anatomic insertion sites: internal jugular, subclavian, and femoral veins. We sought to define site-specific mechanical and duration-associated CVC complication rates across all hospital inpatients.
A retrospective chart review was conducted over 9 months at Georgetown University Hospital and Washington Hospital Center. Peripherally inserted central catheters and tunneled or fluoroscopically placed CVC's were excluded. Mechanical complications (retained guidewire, arterial injury, and pneumothorax) and duration-associated complications (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and central line-associated bloodstream infections) were identified.
In all, 1179 CVC insertions in 801 adult patients were analyzed. Approximately 32% of patients had multiple lines placed. Of 1179 CVCs, 73 total complications were recorded, giving a total rate of one or more complications occurring per CVC of 5.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between site-specific complications. A total of 19 mechanical complications were documented, with a 1.5% complication rate of one or more mechanical complications occurring. A total of 54 delayed complications were documented, with a 4.4% complication rate of 1 or more delayed complications occurring. There were no statistically significant differences between anatomic sites for either total mechanical or total delayed complications.
These results suggest that site-specific CVC complication rates may be less common than previously reported. These data further inform on the safety of modern CVC insertion techniques across all patient populations and clinical settings.
需要反映现代置管技术在临床异质患者人群中应用的中心静脉导管(CVC)并发症发生率,以便更好地了解归因于 3 个常见解剖置管部位(颈内静脉、锁骨下静脉和股静脉)的程序风险。我们旨在定义所有住院患者中特定部位的机械和持续时间相关 CVC 并发症发生率。
在乔治敦大学医院和华盛顿医院中心进行了为期 9 个月的回顾性图表审查。排除外周插入的中央导管和隧道或透视放置的 CVC。确定了机械并发症(残留导丝、动脉损伤和气胸)和持续时间相关并发症(深静脉血栓形成或肺栓塞和中心导管相关血流感染)。
共分析了 801 例成年患者的 1179 例 CVC 插入。约 32%的患者有多条线路放置。在 1179 例 CVC 中,记录了 73 例总并发症,每例 CVC 发生 1 次或多次并发症的总发生率为 5.9%。特定部位并发症之间无统计学差异。共记录了 19 例机械并发症,1 次或多次机械并发症的发生率为 1.5%。共记录了 54 例迟发性并发症,1 次或多次迟发性并发症的发生率为 4.4%。在总机械或总迟发性并发症方面,解剖部位之间无统计学差异。
这些结果表明,特定部位的 CVC 并发症发生率可能低于先前报道的发生率。这些数据进一步说明了现代 CVC 插入技术在所有患者人群和临床环境中的安全性。