Lokeskrawee Thanin, Muengtaweepongsa Sombat, Patumanond Jayanton, Sawaengrat Chutinun
Department of Emergency Medicine, Lampang Hospital, Muang District, Lampang, 52000, Thailand.
Center of Excellence in Stroke, Department of Internal Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Heliyon. 2021 Jun 23;7(6):e07355. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07355. eCollection 2021 Jun.
Central venous catheterization (CVC) remains a common practice in the emergency setting. Routine flushing 10-20 ml of normal saline to maintain the patency of CVC could affect the accuracy of laboratory tests. Typically, physicians require peripheral vein phlebotomy when more blood sampling is needed. One alternative method, the Pull-push method, could avoid the trauma associated with venipuncture and unnecessary peripheral vein phlebotomy. However, there has been no recent study analyzing the accuracy of blood sampling using this technique. We evaluate laboratory tests' accuracy between blood samples drawn by the Pull-push method from CVC after routine flushing with 10 ml of normal saline versus control. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study from May to September 2019. After exclusion, 72 patients were eligible for analysis. Promptly after central venous catheterization, we drew blood samples, stored them in blood collecting tubes, and labeled them for the gold standard group. We flushed with 10 ml of normal saline before blood sampling using the Pull-push method's completed three times; then, we drew blood samples again, labeled Pull-push group. We compared the laboratory results between two groups by paired t-test. The accuracies were analyzed based on an allowable error by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) and presented by a modified Bland-Altman plot. The 72 patients were primarily male (n = 47, 65.3%), had a mean age 60.1 ± 14.0 years, and were diagnosed with sepsis (n = 4, 5.6%) or septic shock (n = 65, 90.3%). For almost all the laboratory values, including hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cell count, platelet count, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, sodium, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, and blood sugar, the accuracy was more than 90% (92.8-98.6%), except aPTT (85.5%) and aPTT ratio (86.7%). Laboratory tests drawn by the Pull-push method could replace peripheral vein phlebotomy to avoid the trauma associated with venipuncture and infection risk.
中心静脉置管(CVC)在急诊环境中仍然是一种常见的操作。常规冲洗10 - 20毫升生理盐水以维持CVC通畅可能会影响实验室检查的准确性。通常,当需要更多血液样本时,医生需要进行外周静脉采血。一种替代方法,即推拉法,可以避免与静脉穿刺相关的创伤以及不必要的外周静脉采血。然而,最近没有研究分析使用该技术进行血液采样的准确性。我们评估了在使用10毫升生理盐水常规冲洗CVC后,通过推拉法采集的血样与对照组血样之间实验室检查的准确性。我们在2019年5月至9月进行了一项诊断准确性研究。排除后,72例患者符合分析条件。在中心静脉置管后立即采集血样,将其储存在采血管中,并标记为金标准组。在使用推拉法完成三次采血前,用10毫升生理盐水冲洗;然后再次采集血样,标记为推拉组。我们通过配对t检验比较两组的实验室结果。根据临床实验室改进修正案(CLIA)的允许误差分析准确性,并通过改良的布兰德 - 奥特曼图呈现。这72例患者主要为男性(n = 47,65.3%),平均年龄60.1±14.0岁,诊断为脓毒症(n = 4,5.6%)或感染性休克(n = 65,90.3%)。对于几乎所有实验室指标,包括血红蛋白、血细胞比容、白细胞计数、血小板计数、血尿素氮、肌酐、钠、钾、氯、碳酸氢盐、凝血酶原时间、国际标准化比值和血糖,准确性均超过90%(92.8 - 98.6%),除活化部分凝血活酶时间(aPTT)(85.5%)和aPTT比值(86.7%)外。通过推拉法采集的实验室检查样本可以替代外周静脉采血,以避免与静脉穿刺相关的创伤和感染风险。