Kwon Sukyung, Son Soo Mi, Lee Seul Hee, Kim Joung Hee, Kim Hyangkyoung, Kim Jang Yong, Kim Ji Il, Moon In Sung
Division of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Division of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Department of Nursing, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
Acute Crit Care. 2020 Feb;35(1):31-37. doi: 10.4266/acc.2019.00731. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
Bedside insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has higher rates of malposition than fluoroscopic-guided PICC placement. This study evaluated the success rate of bedside PICC placement, variations in tip location, and risk factors for malposition.
This retrospective study included patients who underwent bedside PICC placement from January 2013 to September 2014 in a single institution. The procedure was conducted under ultrasound guidance or by a blind method. After PICC placement, tip location was determined by chest X-ray.
The overall venous access success rate with bedside PICC placement was 98.1% (1,302/ 1,327). There was no significant difference in the venous access success rate between ultrasound-guided placement (868/880, 98.6%) and a blind approach placement (434/447, 97.1%). Optimal tip position was achieved on the first attempt in 1,192 cases (91.6%). Repositioning was attempted in 65 patients; 60 PICCs were repositioned at the bedside, two PICCs were repositioned under fluoroscopic guidance, and three PICCs moved to the desired position without intervention. Final optimal tip position after repositioning was achieved in 1,229 (94.4%). In logistic regression analysis, five factors associated with tip malposition included female sex (Exp(B), 1.687; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.180 to 2.412; P=0.004), older age (Exp(B), 1.026; 95% CI, 1.012 to 1.039; P<0.001), cancer (Exp(B), 0.650; 95% CI, 0.455 to 0.929; P=0.018), lung disease (Exp(B), 2.416; 95% CI, 1.592 to 3.666; P<0.001), and previous catheter insertions (Exp(B), 1.262; 95% CI, 1.126 to 1.414; P<0.001).
Bedside PICC placement without fluoroscopy is effective and safe in central venous catheters. Potential risk factors associated with catheter tip malposition include older age, female sex, cancer, pulmonary disease, and previous central vein catheterizations.
与荧光透视引导下放置经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)相比,床边置入PICC的位置不当发生率更高。本研究评估了床边PICC放置的成功率、尖端位置的变化以及位置不当的危险因素。
这项回顾性研究纳入了2013年1月至2014年9月在单一机构接受床边PICC放置的患者。该操作在超声引导下或采用盲插法进行。PICC放置后,通过胸部X线确定尖端位置。
床边PICC放置的总体静脉通路成功率为98.1%(1302/1327)。超声引导放置(868/880,98.6%)和盲插法放置(434/447,97.1%)之间的静脉通路成功率无显著差异。1192例(91.6%)首次尝试即达到最佳尖端位置。65例患者尝试重新定位;60根PICC在床边重新定位,2根PICC在荧光透视引导下重新定位,3根PICC未干预即移至所需位置。重新定位后最终达到最佳尖端位置的有1229例(94.4%)。在逻辑回归分析中,与尖端位置不当相关的五个因素包括女性(Exp(B),1.687;95%置信区间[CI],1.180至2.412;P = 0.004)、年龄较大(Exp(B),1.026;95% CI,1.012至1.039;P < 0.001)、癌症(Exp(B),0.650;95% CI,0.455至0.929;P = 0.018)、肺部疾病(Exp(B),2.416;95% CI,1.592至3.666;P < 0.001)和既往有导管插入史(Exp(B),1.262;95% CI,1.126至1.414;P < 0.001)。
无荧光透视的床边PICC放置在中心静脉导管置入中是有效且安全的。与导管尖端位置不当相关的潜在危险因素包括年龄较大、女性、癌症、肺部疾病和既往中心静脉置管史。