Suppr超能文献

通过中线导管给予血管加压药的安全性和有效性。

Safety and efficacy of vasopressor administration through midline catheters.

作者信息

Prasanna Nivedita, Yamane David, Haridasa Naeha, Davison Danielle, Sparks Andrew, Hawkins Katrina

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, George Washington University Hospital, Washington D.C., USA.

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, George Washington University Hospital, Washington D.C., USA.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2021 Feb;61:1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.09.024. Epub 2020 Oct 2.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Vasopressors are commonly administered through Central Venous Catheters (CVCs) as it is considered unsafe to administer them via peripheral IVs, mainly due to the concern of local tissue injury. Unlike peripheral IVs, midline catheters provide a wider lumen with the catheter tip ending in a large peripheral vein. The use of vasopressors through midline catheters has not yet been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of long term administration of vasopressors through a midline catheter.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study between 2016 and 2019 looking at the outcomes of midline catheters.

SETTING

45 bed Tertiary level ICU in a 600-bed teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 248 patients received vasopressors via midline catheters.

RESULTS

The average midline dwell time was 14.7 ± 12.8 days and the average duration of continuous vasopressor infusion was 7.8 ± 9.3 days. Vasopressors used with their average dose (AD) were norepinephrine (n = 165, 16.8 CE ± 10.7 μg/min), epinephrine (n = 56, 9.1 CE ± 6.0 μg/min), vasopressin (n = 123, 0.05 CE ± 0.02 units/min), phenylephrine (n = 158, 91.4 CE ± 64.7 μg/min) and Angiotensin II (50 CE ± 27.6 ng/kg/min). Early Complication rate was 3.6% due to Bloodstream infection (n = 6), drug extravasation (n = 1), thrombophlebitis (n = 1) and arterial puncture (n = 1). Late Complication rate was 0.8% (n = 2) due to midline-associated DVTs. There were no complications related to ineffective drug delivery or limb endangerment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many medical centers are attempting to limit the use of central venous catheters (CVCs) to avoid central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). This study demonstrates that midline catheters are a safe alternative to CVCs, for the safe and efficacious administration of vasopressors for prolonged periods of time.

摘要

背景

血管升压药通常通过中心静脉导管(CVC)给药,因为经外周静脉给药被认为不安全,主要是担心局部组织损伤。与外周静脉不同,中线导管管腔更宽,导管尖端位于较大的外周静脉。通过中线导管使用血管升压药尚未得到评估。

目的

本研究的主要目的是确定通过中线导管长期使用血管升压药的安全性和有效性。

设计

这是一项回顾性研究,研究2016年至2019年期间中线导管的使用结果。

地点

一家拥有600张床位的教学医院中的45张床位的三级重症监护病房。

患者

共有248例患者通过中线导管接受血管升压药治疗。

结果

中线导管平均留置时间为14.7±12.8天,血管升压药持续输注的平均时间为7.8±9.3天。使用的血管升压药及其平均剂量(AD)分别为去甲肾上腺素(n = 165,16.8 CE±10.7μg/分钟)、肾上腺素(n = 56,9.1 CE±6.0μg/分钟)、血管加压素(n = 123,0.05 CE±0.02单位/分钟)、去氧肾上腺素(n = 158,91.4 CE±64.7μg/分钟)和血管紧张素II(50 CE±27.6 ng/kg/分钟)。早期并发症发生率为3.6%,原因包括血流感染(n = 6)、药物外渗(n = 1)、血栓性静脉炎(n = 1)和动脉穿刺(n = 1)。晚期并发症发生率为0.8%(n = 2),原因是与中线相关的深静脉血栓形成。没有与药物输送无效或肢体危险相关的并发症。

结论

许多医疗中心都在试图限制中心静脉导管(CVC)的使用,以避免中心静脉导管相关血流感染(CLABSI)。本研究表明,中线导管是CVC的一种安全替代方案,可安全有效地长时间使用血管升压药。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验