Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
EEG Brain Mapping Core, Center for Biomedical Imaging, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Apr;216(4):981-988. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.23345. Epub 2021 Feb 17.
Coupled ECG-electromagnetic (EM) guidance shows promise for use in placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) when compared with the classic blind technique. However, ECG-EM guidance has not been appropriately compared with the reference standard of fluoroscopy (FX) guidance. Here, we aimed to compare ECG-EM guidance with FX guidance with regard to the final tip position of PICCs. A total of 120 patients (age range, 19-94 years) referred for PICC placement were randomized to the ECG-EM or FX group. All interventions were performed by PICC team members who had the same standardized training and experience. Final tip position was assessed using chest radiography and was classified as optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate requiring repositioning on the basis of the distance from the PICC tip to the cavoatrial junction (CAJ). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney test for final catheter tip position (mean distance from CAJ) and Fisher and chi-square tests for proportions. PICCs were successfully inserted in 118 patients (53 men and 65 women). Catheter tip positions were optimal or suboptimal in 100% of the FX group and 77.2% of the ECG-EM group. Furthermore, precision of placement was significantly better ( = .004) in the FX group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 0.83 cm) than in the ECGEM group (mean distance from the PICC tip to the CAJ = 1.37 cm). Thirteen (22.8%) of the PICCs placed using ECG-EM guidance, all of which were inserted from the left side, were qualified as inadequate requiring repositioning and required another intervention. Our results revealed significant differences in final tip position between the ECG-EM and FX guidance techniques and indicate that ECG-EM guidance cannot appropriately replace FX guidance among unselected patients. However, ECGEM guidance could be considered as an acceptable technique for patients in whom the PICC could be inserted from the right side. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652727.
心电图-电磁(EM)引导在与经典盲法相比时,显示出在放置外周中心静脉导管(PICC)方面具有优势。然而,心电图-EM 引导尚未与透视(FX)引导的参考标准进行适当比较。在此,我们旨在比较心电图-EM 引导与 FX 引导在 PICC 最终尖端位置方面的效果。
共有 120 名(年龄范围为 19-94 岁)接受 PICC 置管的患者被随机分配到心电图-EM 或 FX 组。所有干预均由具有相同标准化培训和经验的 PICC 团队成员进行。根据 PICC 尖端与腔静脉心房连接(CAJ)的距离,使用胸部 X 线片评估最终尖端位置,并将尖端位置分类为最佳、次优或需要重新定位的不充分。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验进行最终导管尖端位置(距 CAJ 的平均距离)的统计学分析,Fisher 和卡方检验用于比例。
118 例患者(53 名男性和 65 名女性)成功插入 PICC。FX 组 100%和心电图-EM 组 77.2%的导管尖端位置为最佳或次佳。此外,FX 组(PICC 尖端到 CAJ 的平均距离=0.83cm)的放置精度明显更好(=0.004),而心电图-EM 组(PICC 尖端到 CAJ 的平均距离=1.37cm)。使用心电图-EM 引导放置的 13 个(22.8%)PICC 均从左侧插入,被认为是需要重新定位的不充分,需要再次干预。
我们的结果显示,心电图-EM 和 FX 引导技术在最终尖端位置方面存在显著差异,这表明心电图-EM 引导不能在未选择的患者中适当替代 FX 引导。然而,心电图-EM 引导可被认为是可以从右侧插入 PICC 的患者的一种可接受的技术。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652727。