Suppr超能文献

非超声专家的床旁超声引导中心静脉导管确认

Point-of-care Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation in Ultrasound Nonexperts.

作者信息

Ablordeppey Enyo A, Drewry Anne M, Anderson Adam L, Casali Diego, Wallace Laura A, Kane Deborah S, Tian LinLin, House Stacey L, Fuller Brian M, Griffey Richard T, Theodoro Daniel L

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis MO USA.

the Department of Emergency Medicine Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis MO USA.

出版信息

AEM Educ Train. 2020 Oct 13;5(3):e10530. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10530. eCollection 2021 Jul.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Emerging evidence suggests that chest radiography (CXR) following central venous catheter (CVC) placement is unnecessary when point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used to confirm catheter position and exclude pneumothorax. However, few providers have adopted this practice, and it is unknown what contributing factors may play a role in this lack of adoption, such as ultrasound experience. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS to confirm CVC position and exclude a pneumothorax after brief education and training of nonexperts.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study in a single academic medical center to determine the diagnostic characteristics of a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after brief training performed by POCUS nonexperts. POCUS nonexperts (emergency medicine senior residents and critical care fellows) independently performed a POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol after a 30-minute didactic training. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the POCUS-guided CVC confirmation protocol for malposition and pneumothorax detection. Secondary outcomes were efficiency and feasibility of adequate image acquisition, adjudicated by POCUS experts.

RESULTS

Twenty-six POCUS nonexperts collected data on 190 patients in the final analysis. There were five (2.5%) CVC malpositions and six (3%) pneumothoraxes on CXR. The positive likelihood ratios of POCUS for malposition detection and pneumothorax were 12.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.26 to 46.69) and 3.41 (95% CI = 0.51 to 22.76), respectively. The accuracy of POCUS for pneumothorax detection compared to CXR was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.96) and the sensitivity was 0.17 (95% CI = 0.00 to 0.64). The median (interquartile range) time for CVC confirmation was lower for POCUS (9 minutes [8.5-9.5 minutes]) compared to CXR (29 minutes [1-269 minutes]; Mann-Whitney U, p < 0.01). Adequate protocol image acquisition was achieved in 76% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-minute training of POCUS in nonexperts demonstrates adequate diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, and feasibility of POCUS-guided CVC position confirmation, but not exclusion of pneumothorax.

摘要

目的

新出现的证据表明,当使用床旁超声(POCUS)确认中心静脉导管(CVC)位置并排除气胸时,放置CVC后进行胸部X线摄影(CXR)是不必要的。然而,很少有医疗人员采用这种做法,而且尚不清楚哪些因素可能导致这种做法未被采用,比如超声经验。本研究的目的是评估在对非专业人员进行简短教育和培训后,POCUS确认CVC位置并排除气胸的诊断准确性。

方法

我们在一家学术医疗中心进行了一项前瞻性队列研究,以确定在POCUS非专业人员进行简短培训后,POCUS引导的CVC确认方案的诊断特征。POCUS非专业人员(急诊医学高级住院医师和重症医学研究员)在接受30分钟的理论培训后,独立执行POCUS引导的CVC确认方案。主要结果是POCUS引导的CVC确认方案对导管位置异常和气胸检测的诊断准确性。次要结果是由POCUS专家判定的获取足够图像的效率和可行性。

结果

在最终分析中,26名POCUS非专业人员收集了190名患者的数据。胸部X线检查发现5例(2.5%)CVC位置异常和6例(3%)气胸。POCUS检测导管位置异常和气胸的阳性似然比分别为12.33(95%置信区间[CI]=3.26至46.69)和3.41(95%CI=0.51至22.76)。与胸部X线检查相比,POCUS检测气胸的准确性为0.93(95%CI=0.88至0.96),敏感性为0.17(95%CI=0.00至0.64)。POCUS确认CVC的中位(四分位间距)时间(9分钟[8.5-9.5分钟])低于胸部X线检查(29分钟[1-269分钟];Mann-Whitney U检验,p<0.01)。76%的患者获得了足够的方案图像。

结论

对非专业人员进行30分钟的POCUS培训表明,POCUS引导的CVC位置确认具有足够的诊断准确性、效率和可行性,但不能排除气胸。

相似文献

1
Point-of-care Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Confirmation in Ultrasound Nonexperts.
AEM Educ Train. 2020 Oct 13;5(3):e10530. doi: 10.1002/aet2.10530. eCollection 2021 Jul.
4
Implementation of ultrasound after central venous catheter insertion: A qualitative study in early adopters.
J Vasc Access. 2023 Sep;24(5):879-888. doi: 10.1177/11297298211053447. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
6
Comparison between ultrasound and chest X-ray to confirm central venous catheter tip position.
SA J Radiol. 2023 Jun 29;27(1):2587. doi: 10.4102/sajr.v27i1.2587. eCollection 2023.
8
The bubble study: ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter placement.
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;33(3):315-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.10.010. Epub 2014 Oct 13.
9
Simplified point-of-care ultrasound protocol to confirm central venous catheter placement: A prospective study.
World J Emerg Med. 2017;8(1):25-28. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2017.01.004.
10
Prospective comparison of ultrasound and CXR for confirmation of central vascular catheter placement.
Emerg Med J. 2016 Mar;33(3):176-80. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-205000. Epub 2015 Oct 7.

本文引用的文献

5
Routine chest X-ray is unnecessary after ultrasound-guided central venous line placement in the operating room.
J Crit Care. 2018 Aug;46:13-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.03.027. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
8
Use of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Confirmation of Central Venous Catheter Placement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 Dec;36(12):2503-2510. doi: 10.1002/jum.14296. Epub 2017 Jun 29.
10
Ultrasound as a Screening Tool for Central Venous Catheter Positioning and Exclusion of Pneumothorax.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Jul;45(7):1192-1198. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002451.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验