| Literature DB >> 30082572 |
AiMin Li1, JianGuo Jiao2, Ying Zhang1, Li Tian1, JinHong Miao3, XiaoLi Hao1, ZhenChang Sun1, QiaoZhi Sun1.
Abstract
Background & objectives: The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) has the advantages of higher safety, lower infection rate and longer retention time than peripherally inserted catheter. This study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of bedside electrocardiograph (ECG)-guided tip location technique in PICC in cancer patients, and compared with traditional chest radiography tip location technique.Entities:
Keywords: Anxiety - chest radiograph - complications - electrocardiograph-guided - tip location
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30082572 PMCID: PMC6094514 DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_1120_16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Med Res ISSN: 0971-5916 Impact factor: 2.375
Fig. 1Flowchart showing the study design. PICC, peripherally inserted central venous catheter; ECG, electrocardiograph.
Characteristics of patients in the two groups
Fig. 2Three electrocardiograph P wave forms seen during catheterization in the electrocardiograph test group. (A) Blunt, low-amplitude, P waves. (B) Biphasic P waves. (C) High-amplitude P waves (50 or 90% of QRS amplitude).
Fig. 3Chest radiographs of patients from the two groups. Arrow indicates the position of the catheter tip. Tip location flush with the 7th intercostal in a patient from the electrocardiograph test group. A-1 (chest radiograph); A-2 (magnified image). Tip location flush with the 5th intercostal in a patient from the control group. B-1 (chest radiograph); B-2 (magnified image).
Precision of catheter tip positioning in the two groups
Mean anxiety scores before and after catheterization in the two groups
Procedure related complications in the two study groups after PICC insertion