4.5 Article

Decrease in central venous catheter placement due to use of ultrasound guidance for peripheral intravenous catheters

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 9, 页码 1950-1954

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.04.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: Obtaining intravenous (IV) access in the emergency department (ED) can be especially challenging, and physicians often resort to placement of central venous catheters (CVCs). Use of ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters (USGPIVs) can prevent many unnecessary CVCs, but the true impact of USGPIVs has never been quantified. This study set out to determine the reduction in CVCs by USGPIV placement. Methods: This was a prospective, observational study conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients who were to undergo placement of a CVC due to inability to establish IV access by other methods were enrolled. Ultrasound-trained physicians then attempted USGPIV placement. Patients were followed up for up to 7 days to assess for CVC placement and related complications. Results: One hundred patients were enrolled and underwent USGPIV placement. Ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters were initially successfully placed in all patients but failed in 12 patients (12.0%; 95 confidence interval [CI], 7.0%-19.8%) before ED disposition, resulting in 4 central lines, 7 repeated USGPIVs, and 1 patient requiring no further intervention. Through the inpatient follow-up period, another 11 patients underwent CVC placement, resulting in a total of 15 CVCs (15.0%; 95 CI, 9.3%-23.3%) placed. Of the 15 patients who did receive a CVC, 1 patient developed a catheter-related infection, resulting in a 6.7% (95 CI, 1.2%-29.8%) complication rate. Conclusion: Ultrasound prevented the need for CVC placement in 85% of patients with difficult IV access. This suggests that USGPIVs have the potential to reduce morbidity in this patient population. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据