| Literature DB >> 35761811 |
Lihua Shi1, Huihui Chen1, Yaping Yang1, Huifen Li2, Jianfang Zhang1.
Abstract
Accurate positioning of the catheter tip is one of the most critical procedures in central venous catheter insertion. The traditional surface measurement method frequently has a large deviation and increases the X-ray exposure of doctors and patients. In the present retrospective study, cancer patients who received a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) in the upper arm using intracavitary electrocardiogram (ECG) guidance were compared with those where the traditional surface measurement method was used in terms of the rate of correct placement of the catheter tip, the rate of achieving the best position, the operation time and the complications. The results indicated that the correct placement rate and the best position rate of the catheter tip at the first attempt were higher in the ECG-guided group than in the traditional surface measurement method group (95.65 vs. 82.91% and 90.58 vs. 68.38%, respectively). The mean operation time was shorter in the ECG-guided group than in the surface measurement group (46.28 vs. 63.26 min). The incidence of complications in the ECG-guided group was 6.52%, while that in the surface measurement group was 10.26%. This indicated that the intracavitary ECG-guided tip positioning technique may improve the accuracy of tip catheter placement and shorten the operation time, thus reducing ionizing radiation caused by repeated positioning. Therefore, the intracavitary ECG-guided tip positioning technique is able to effectively place the tip of the TIVAD in the upper arm, holding great promise as a clinical application. Copyright: © Shi et al.Entities:
Keywords: cancer patients; intracavity electrocardiogram localization; upper arm implantable infusion port
Year: 2022 PMID: 35761811 PMCID: PMC9214596 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2022.11404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.751
Clinical characteristics of patients.
| Item | Overall (n=255) | Surface measurement group (n=117) | ECG-guided group (n=138) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 54.91±14.29 | 53.42±13.68 | 56.19±16.44 | NS |
| Males/females | 127/128 | 56/61 | 71/67 | NS |
| Body height, cm | 165.16±15.18 | 164.72±9.68 | 165.54±13.26 | NS |
| Body weight, kg | 60.58±10.43 | 59.77±11.37 | 61.27±9.87 | NS |
| Smoker | 73 | 35 | 38 | NS |
| Venipuncture site | ||||
| Basilic vein left | 22 | 10 | 12 | NS |
| Basilic vein right | 143 | 78 | 65 | NS |
| Brachial vein left | 24 | 10 | 14 | NS |
| Brachial vein right | 66 | 32 | 34 | NS |
Values are expressed as n or the mean ± standard deviation. NS, not significant.
Figure 1Characteristic changes of intracavitary ECG during catheter insertion. (A) Sinus P wave in lead II. (B) A biphasic P-wave in lead II occurred when the catheter was judged to have entered the right atrium. (C) When the catheter was retreated to the location associated with the horizontal position of the highest peak of the positive P wave, the catheter tip was in its best position.
Figure 2(A) Representative post-procedure chest X-ray, (B) corresponding chest CT image and (C) photograph of insertion site. The red arrow in A and B indicates the catheter tip.
Comparison of correct placement and best position of catheter tip and operation time.
| Item | Overall (n=255) | Surface measurement group (n=117) | ECG-guided group (n=138) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct placement of catheter tip | 229 (89.80) | 97 (82.91) | 132 (95.65) | 0.0018 |
| Best position | 205 (80.39) | 80 (68.38) | 125 (90.58) | <0.0001 |
| Operation time, min | 54.07±9.77 | 63.26±8.76 | 46.28±9.76 | 0.0226 |
Values are expressed as n (%) or the mean ± standard deviation.
Details regarding complications.
| Complication | Overall (n=255) | Surface measurement group (n=117) | ECG-guided group (n=138) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phlebitis | 8 (3.14) | 5 (4.27) | 3 (2.17) | NS |
| Thrombosis | 6 (2.35) | 4 (3.42) | 2 (1.45) | NS |
| Arrhythmia | 7 (2.76) | 3 (2.56) | 4 (2.90) | NS |
Values are expressed as n (%). NS, not significant.