Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Osaka Prefectural Hospital Organization, Osaka Women's and Children's Hospital, Izumi, Osaka, Japan.
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Hospital Organization, Kyoto Medical Center, Mukaihata-cho, Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, Japan.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019 Nov;33(11):2979-2984. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.051. Epub 2019 Mar 28.
The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies.
Randomized controlled study.
Single tertiary institution.
One hundred twenty patients who underwent cardiac or vascular surgery under general anesthesia.
The patients were divided randomly into combined short-axis-and-long-axis (n = 40), short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) (n = 40), and long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) (n = 40) groups and received ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization at the right internal jugular vein.
Successful guidewire insertion without posterior wall puncture was performed in 40 patients (100%) in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach group, 28 (70%) in the short-axis out-of-plane approach group, and 38 (95%) in the LA-IP approach group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.0002 [relative risk = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.75]; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.49 [relative risk = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.13]). Procedure durations were 28.5 (24.1-36.4) seconds in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis group, 31.7 (24.4-40.6) seconds in the SA-OOP group, and 24.3 (20.8-32.1) seconds in the long-axis in-plane group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.53; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.044).
The combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization had a lower posterior wall puncture rate than the SA-OOP approach, but there was no significant difference with the long-axis in-plane approach.
作者比较了短轴平面外和长轴平面内两种方法以及作者之前证明在观察性和人体模型研究中有效的短轴-长轴联合方法在使用中发生后侧壁穿刺的情况。
随机对照研究。
单一的三级机构。
120 名在全身麻醉下接受心脏或血管手术的患者。
患者随机分为短轴-长轴联合(n=40)、短轴平面外(SA-OOP)(n=40)和长轴平面内(LA-IP)(n=40)组,在右侧颈内静脉进行超声引导下中心静脉置管。
在短轴-长轴联合组中,40 例(100%)患者成功插入导丝而无后侧壁穿刺,在短轴平面外组中,28 例(70%)患者成功插入导丝而无后侧壁穿刺,在 LA-IP 组中,38 例(95%)患者成功插入导丝而无后侧壁穿刺(短轴-长轴联合与 SA-OOP 相比,p=0.0002[相对风险=1.43;95%可信区间:1.17-1.75];短轴-长轴联合与 LA-IP 相比,p=0.49[相对风险=1.05;95%可信区间:0.98-1.13])。在短轴-长轴联合组中,手术时间为 28.5(24.1-36.4)秒,在 SA-OOP 组中为 31.7(24.4-40.6)秒,在长轴平面内组中为 24.3(20.8-32.1)秒(短轴-长轴联合与 SA-OOP 相比,p=0.53;短轴-长轴联合与 LA-IP 相比,p=0.044)。
与 SA-OOP 入路相比,超声引导下中心静脉置管的短轴-长轴联合入路后侧壁穿刺率较低,但与长轴平面内入路无显著差异。