Kulkarni M, Elsner C, Ouellet D, Zeldin R
Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Toronto East General & Orthopaedic Hospital Inc., Ont.
Can J Surg. 1994 Feb;37(1):37-42.
To compare the ability of normal versus heparinized saline infusion to maintain patency of the radial artery catheter used for monitoring or multiple blood sampling.
Randomized double-blind trial.
A university-affiliated hospital.
All 108 patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit who required radial arterial line catheters. Excluded were patients who required emergency admission, those who refused to give consent, those who needed anticoagulants, thrombolytic or platelet therapy, those whose cannulation site was other than the radial artery, inadvertent discontinuation of the arterial line or incomplete data collection. This resulted in a sample of 78 adults, randomized according to date of admission.
Forty patients admitted on odd-numbered dates received heparinized normal saline (2 units/mL), and 38 patients admitted on even dates received normal saline, both as continuous flush solutions.
Measurement of radial artery flow and pressure before and after cannulation, and catheter patency during cannulation.
The type of flush solution did not adversely affect the radial artery or the hand in any measurable way. Catheter blockage occurred in three patients receiving heparinized saline and seven patients receiving normal saline as the flush solution (p = 0.06). At 96 hours of cannulation, 92% of the catheters in the heparinized saline group were patent compared with 74% in the normal saline group. Intra-arterial blood pressure was inaccurate compared with the brachial cuff pressure in 6 patients in the heparinized saline group compared with 14 patients in the normal saline group (p < 0.03).
There is no significant difference between flushing with normal saline and heparinized saline in the maintenance of radial arterial line patency. However, the use of a continuous heparinized flush solution in pressurized arterial lines is beneficial in that it results in greater accuracy of blood pressure monitoring than normal saline infusion.
比较普通生理盐水输注与肝素化生理盐水输注维持用于监测或多次采血的桡动脉导管通畅的能力。
随机双盲试验。
一所大学附属医院。
所有入住外科重症监护病房且需要桡动脉置管的108例患者。排除需要急诊入院的患者、拒绝同意的患者、需要抗凝、溶栓或血小板治疗的患者、置管部位不是桡动脉的患者、动脉导管意外中断或数据收集不完整的患者。这导致78名成年人的样本,根据入院日期进行随机分组。
奇数日期入院的40例患者接受肝素化生理盐水(2单位/毫升),偶数日期入院的38例患者接受生理盐水,均作为持续冲洗液。
置管前后桡动脉血流和压力的测量,以及置管期间导管的通畅情况。
冲洗液类型未对桡动脉或手部产生任何可测量的不利影响。接受肝素化生理盐水作为冲洗液的3例患者和接受生理盐水作为冲洗液的7例患者发生导管堵塞(p = 0.06)。置管96小时时,肝素化生理盐水组92%的导管通畅,而生理盐水组为74%。与肱动脉袖带压力相比,肝素化生理盐水组6例患者的动脉内血压不准确,而生理盐水组为14例患者(p < 0.03)。
在维持桡动脉导管通畅方面,生理盐水冲洗和肝素化生理盐水冲洗之间没有显著差异。然而,在加压动脉导管中使用持续肝素化冲洗液是有益的,因为与生理盐水输注相比,它能使血压监测更准确。