Amber Seigel1, Nick Evans1,2, Tracey Lutz1,2. 1. Department of Newborn Care, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Safe tip placement of umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) in sick neonates is critical in minimising risk. We aimed to demonstrate the utility of clinician-performed ultrasound (CPU) in identifying UVCs that are placed within small intrahepatic portal vessels or within the heart despite the appearance of being well placed on X-ray. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of preterm and term neonates who had a UVC placed and the position assessed by X-ray and/or CPU according to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital level 3 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) guideline. Cases were identified by exporting the records of all admissions between 1 April 2015 and 30 June 2016 from the NICU's data collection database. Paper-based medical records, NICU's data collection database records and the ultrasound reporting system were reviewed to determine X-ray and CPU findings. RESULTS: A total of 157 neonates had 169 UVCs placed. CPU was performed in 77% (111). In 15 cases (14%), UVC placement on X-ray appeared appropriate based on estimated vertebral level; however, CPU demonstrated the line to be in an unsafe position (small intrahepatic portal vessel (3); right atrium (9); left atrium (3)). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of safe UVC placement by estimations according to vertebral level on X-ray alone is inadequate. CPU offers confident localisation of the UVC tip and enables corrective manipulation of intracardiac or intrahepatic UVCs in real time. We recommend CPU as an adjunct to X-ray to ensure safe UVC placement.
AIM: Safe tip placement of umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) in sick neonates is critical in minimising risk. We aimed to demonstrate the utility of clinician-performed ultrasound (CPU) in identifying UVCs that are placed within small intrahepatic portal vessels or within the heart despite the appearance of being well placed on X-ray. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of preterm and term neonates who had a UVC placed and the position assessed by X-ray and/or CPU according to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital level 3 neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) guideline. Cases were identified by exporting the records of all admissions between 1 April 2015 and 30 June 2016 from the NICU's data collection database. Paper-based medical records, NICU's data collection database records and the ultrasound reporting system were reviewed to determine X-ray and CPU findings. RESULTS: A total of 157 neonates had 169 UVCs placed. CPU was performed in 77% (111). In 15 cases (14%), UVC placement on X-ray appeared appropriate based on estimated vertebral level; however, CPU demonstrated the line to be in an unsafe position (small intrahepatic portal vessel (3); right atrium (9); left atrium (3)). CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of safe UVC placement by estimations according to vertebral level on X-ray alone is inadequate. CPU offers confident localisation of the UVC tip and enables corrective manipulation of intracardiac or intrahepatic UVCs in real time. We recommend CPU as an adjunct to X-ray to ensure safe UVC placement.