Correct Central Venous Catheter Research Articles

Additionally using transthoracic echocardiography during ultrasound-guided jugular central venous catheter placement and the odds of catheter misplacement in children: A before-and-after study.

Central venous catheter (CVC) misplacement is a major complication.1 To avoid CVC misplacement, real-time ultrasound (US) guidance is recommended for CVC placement in children.2, 3 Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) can be additionally used to confirm correct CVC tip position.4, 5 Whether additionally using TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement reduces the incidence of catheter misplacement remains scarcely described. We thus sought to test the hypothesis that additionally using TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement reduces the odds of CVC misplacement in children. After approval by the ethics committee with waiver of informed consent, we performed a retrospective before-and-after study in children aged 0–6 years who received a jugular CVC during anesthetic induction for congenital heart disease surgery at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Hamburg, Germany) between March 2015 and April 2020. In our institution, jugular CVCs in children having cardiac surgery are routinely placed using real-time US guidance since 2013. In October 2017, routine use of additional TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement was implemented. In the 31-month “before period” (March 2015 to September 2017), anesthesiologists did not use TTE but chose the CVC insertion depth considering patient height (no-TTE-group). In the 31-month “after period” (October 2017 to April 2020), additional TTE (subcostal long-axis view) was routinely used during US-guided jugular CVC placement to confirm the correct position of the guidewire and the CVC tip (rapid saline flush test) (TTE-group) (Figure S1). During both study periods, chest x-ray was used to confirm correct CVC tip position after surgery. We categorized CVCs as misplaced when the CVC tip ended above the level of the superior vena cava in a noncentral vein or deep in the right atrium (Figure S2). We investigated the associations between CVC misplacement and TTE use by logistic regression for all patients including age as covariate—and separately for patients aged <1 year and 1–6 years. We report the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. We included 373 patients (156 no-TTE-group and 217 TTE-group) (Table S1). CVC misplacement occurred in 15/156 no-TTE-group patients (9.6%) and in 5/217 TTE-group patients (2.3%). The odds for CVC misplacement were 371% lower when TTE was used compared to when it was not used (p = .004, OR = 0.21 [0.067–0.57]) (Figure 1). Of all 373 patients, 229 (61%) were younger than 1 year. In these patients, CVC misplacement occurred in 8/76 no-TTE-group patients (11%) and in 4/153 TTE-group patients (2.6%). The odds for CVC misplacement were 319% lower when TTE was used (p = .023, OR = 0.24 [0.062–0.79]). Of all 373 patients, 144 (39%) were between 1 and 6 years old. In these patients, CVC misplacement occurred in 7/80 no-TTE-group patients (8.8%) and in 1/64 TTE-group patients (1.6%). The odds for CVC misplacement were 480% lower when TTE was used (p = .107, OR = 0.17 [0.0090–1.0]). In our study, additionally using TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement in children reduced the odds for CVC misplacement by more than 300%—which obviously is clinically meaningful. In only about 1% of children, the subcostal long-axis view could not be obtained—and TTE could thus not be used to confirm the CVC tip position. In general, children provide an excellent acoustic window for TTE examination of the right atrium and the superior vena cava. Nevertheless, TTE requires technical skills and operator experience. Our results need to be interpreted in light of the inherent limitations of retrospective before-and-after studies. Additionally, we only included children with congenital heart disease, whose anatomy may differ from healthy children. However, as we excluded patients with irregular venous conformations, we assume that our findings can be transferred to pediatric patients in general. Additionally using TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement reduces the odds of CVC misplacement in children aged 0–6 years. Clinicians should consider additionally using TTE during US-guided jugular CVC placement to increase patient safety. This work was supported solely from institutional and/or department sources. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Supporting Information Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Chest radiography for simplified evaluation of central venous catheter tip positioning for safe and accurate haemodynamic monitoring: a retrospective observational study

ObjectivesThe tip-to-carina (TC) distance on a simple chest X-ray (CXR) has proven value in the determination of correct central venous catheter (CVC) positioning. However, previous studies have mostly focused on...

Perioperative Echocardiography to Confirm Correct Central Venous Catheter Placement: A Case Report

Central venous catheterization is widely regarded as a safe procedure by anesthesiologists and intensivists, but insertion complications and catheter malposition remain challenges for the clinicians performing central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. We report a case in which a right internal jugular CVC was inserted under ultrasound guidance and was found to be malpositioned after sternotomy into an anomalous posterior thymic vein. Therefore, we recommend confirming the correct position of CVC with transesophageal echocardiography if such is indicated for the perioperative period and emphasize the importance of a correct J-tip of the guidewire when placing a CVC.

Current Practices in Central Venous Catheter Position Confirmation by Point of Care Ultrasound: A Survey of Early Adopters.

Although routine chest radiographs (CXR) to verify correct central venous catheter (CVC) position and exclude pneumothorax are commonly performed, emerging evidence suggests that this practice can be replaced by point of care ultrasound (POCUS). POCUS is advantageous over CXR because it avoids radiation while verifying correct placement and lack of pneumothorax without delay. We hypothesize that a knowledge translation gap exists in this area. We aim to describe the current clinical practice regarding POCUS alone for CVC position confirmation and pneumothorax exclusion as compared with chest radiography. We used a modified Dillman technique to conduct a brief web-based survey to Critical Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine physicians (targeted group of early adopters) evaluating the current practice related to CVC position confirmation and PTX exclusion via CXR or POCUS. Of 200 post-training clinicians contacted, 136 (68%) responded to the survey. For routine CVC confirmation and PTX evaluation, 50.7% of Critical Care Medicine physicians and 65.4% of Emergency Medicine physicians reported using CXR alone while 49.3% and 33.1% respectively reported using CXR and ultrasound together. Though 84.6% of clinicians use ultrasound for CVC insertion "most of the time" or "always," none use ultrasound alone for CVC position confirmation, and only 1% has used ultrasound alone for PTX exclusion. Though data support its utility and advantages for POCUS as a sole modality for CVC position confirmation and PTX evaluation, POCUS is rarely used for this indication. We identified several perceived barriers toward widespread utilization suggesting areas for dissemination and implementation strategy development that will benefit patient care practices.

The "rapid atrial swirl sign" for assessing central venous catheters: Performance by medical residents after limited training.

RationaleCentral venous catheter (CVC) placement is a standard procedure in critical care. Ultrasound guidance during placement is recommended by current guidelines, but there is no consensus on the best method for evaluating the correct CVC tip position. Recently, the “rapid atrial swirl sign” (RASS) has been investigated in a limited number of studies.ObjectivesWe performed a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of focused echocardiography for the evaluation of CVC tip position in our medical ICU and IMC units.MethodsWe performed a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in 100 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and Intermediate Care Unit at our center. The first 10 subjects were assessed by one staff physician investigator (reference cohort), the remaining 90 patients by different residents (test cohort). All patients received a post-procedural chest radiograph (CXR) as gold standard. CVC placement was assessed with focused echocardiography performed by residents after a short training session. A rapid opacification of the right atrium (RASS) after injection of 10 mL of normal saline was regarded as “positive”, flush after more than two seconds was defined as “delayed”, no flush was a “negative” test result.Measurements and main resultsOverall sensitivity of the RASS was 100% (95% CI 73.54–100%), specificity was 94.32% (CI 87.24–98.13%). Positive and negative predictive values were 70.59% (CI 44.04–89.09%) and 100% (CI 95.65–100%), respectively. Median time for echocardiographic testing was 5 minutes (1–28) in the whole cohort, CXRs were available after 49.5 minutes (13–254). Interrater agreement of the RASS was 0.77 (Cohen’s kappa), Measurement of CVC tip position was not different between two observers. Test characteristics were similar among differently experienced residents.ConclusionsPresence of the RASS by focused echocardiography showed excellent sensitivity and specificity and was equally performed by residents after minimal training. In patients with a positive RASS, routine CXR can be safely omitted, reducing time, costs and radiation exposure. A negative RASS should lead to a search for misplaced catheters.Clinical trial registrationThe study was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02661607).

Simplified point-of-care ultrasound protocol to confirm central venous catheter placement: A prospective study.

The current standard for confirmation of correct supra-diaphragmatic central venous catheter (CVC) placement is with plain film chest radiography (CXR). We hypothesized that a simple point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocol could effectively confirm placement and reduce time to confirmation. We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of patients in the emergency department and intensive care unit who required CVC placement. Correct positioning was considered if turbulent flow was visualized in the right atrium on sub-xiphoid, parasternal or apical cardiac ultrasound after injecting 5 cc of sterile, non-agitated, normal saline through the CVC. Seventy-eight patients were enrolled. POCUS had a sensitivity of 86.8% (95%CI 77.1%-93.5%) and specificity of 100% (95%CI 15.8%-100.0%) for identifying correct central venous catheter placement. Median POCUS and CXR completion were 16 minutes (IQR 10-29) and 32 minutes (IQR 19-45), respectively. Ultrasound may be an effective tool to confirm central venous catheter placement in instances where there is a delay in obtaining a confirmatory CXR.

Ultrasound for Localization of Central Venous Catheter: A Good Alternative to Chest X-Ray?

BackgroundChest radiography after central venous catheter (CVC) insertion is the main method of verifying the catheter location. Despite the widespread use of radiography for detecting catheter position, x-ray may not always be readily available, especially in the operating room.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and chest radiography for detecting the correct location of CVCs.MethodsOne hundred sixteen consecutive patients with indications for CVC before cardiac surgery were enrolled in this observational study. After catheter insertion, CEUS was performed. Portable radiography was obtained postoperatively in the intensive care unit. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined by comparing the ultrasonography results with radiographic findings as a reference standard.ResultsChest radiography revealed 16 CVC misplacements: two cases of intravascular and 14 cases of right atrium (RA) misplacement. CEUS detected 11 true catheter malpositionings in the RA, while it could not recognize seven catheter placements correctly. CEUS showed two false RA misplacements and five falsely correct CVC positions. A sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 69% were achieved for CEUS in detecting CVC misplacements. Positive and negative predictive values were 95% and 85%, respectively. The interrater agreement (kappa) between CEUS and radiography was 0.72 (P < 0.001).ConclusionsDespite close concordance between ultrasonography and chest radiography, CEUS is not a suitable alternative for standard chest radiography in detecting CVC location; however, considering its high sensitivity and acceptable specificity in our study, its usefulness as a triage method for detecting CVC location on a real-time basis in the operating room cannot be ignored.

Central Venous Catheter Intravascular Malpositioning: Causes, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Correction

Despite the level of skill of the operator and the use of ultrasound guidance, central venous catheter (CVC) placement can result in CVC malpositioning, an unintended placement of the catheter tip in an inadequate vessel. CVC malpositioning is not a complication of central line insertion; however, undiagnosed CVC malpositioning can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this review were to describe factors associated with intravascular malpositioning of CVCs inserted via the neck and chest and to offer ways of preventing, identifying, and correcting such malpositioning. A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MD Consult was performed in June 2014. By searching for “Central line malposition” and then for “Central venous catheters intravascular malposition,” we found 178 articles written in English. Of those, we found that 39 were relevant to our objectives and included them in our review. According to those articles, intravascular CVC malpositioning is associated with the presence of congenital and acquired anatomical variants, catheter insertion in left thoracic venous system, inappropriate bevel orientation upon needle insertion, and patient’s body habitus variants. Although plain chest radiography is the standard imaging modality for confirming catheter tip location, signs and symptoms of CVC malpositioning even in presence of normal or inconclusive conventional radiography findings should prompt the use of additional diagnostic methods to confirm or rule out CVC malpositioning. With very few exceptions, the recommendation in cases of intravascular CVC malpositioning is to remove and relocate the catheter. Knowing the mechanisms of CVC malpositioning and how to prevent, identify, and correct CVC malpositioning could decrease harm to patients with this condition.

Formulas for prediction of insertion depths of internal jugular vein catheters adjusted to body height categories.

Whether formulas for prediction of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion depths have different applicability in patients with different body heights is not known. Goal of study was to test formulas for catheterizations of internal jugular veins (IJVs) in a population of different body height classes with correct CVC tip positions. Consecutive adult patients requiring CVC for cardiac surgery were enrolled and those with tip positions at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium ±1 cm underwent formula analysis. Precision of formula prediction was calculated for three classes of body height. Of the 635 included patients, 254 underwent right IJV catheterization and 381 underwent left IJV catheterization, respectively. Formula-guided approach for both right [formulas (height/10) (in cm) and (height/10) -1 (in cm)] and left [formula (height/10) + 4 (in cm)] IJV CVC was more precise in patients with a body height of 170-180 cm compared with patients with a body height &lt;170 cm (who required deeper insertion than predicted by formula) and patients with a body height &gt;180 cm (who required a more proximal insertion than predicted by formula). Independent from body height classes, all formulas calculated a relatively low likelihood of atrial positions but high risks of proximal mal-positioning. Thus, considering inter-individual differences of vascular anatomy and for safety reasons, formulas cannot be recommended.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound vs chest X-ray to determine correct central venous catheter position

PurposesWe aimed to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), compared with chest x-ray (CXR), in the detection of correct central venous line (CVL) placement. Our hypothesis was to verify whether CEUS could substitute CXR as a reference standard for correct placement of CVL or function as a triage test to limit the execution of CXR only for selected patients. Basic ProceduresCEUS was carried out in 71 non consecutive patients to verify the correct positioning of a central venous line. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios of CEUS compared to CXR, with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI), were calculated. Main FindingsCXR identified 6 CVL misplacements (8,4%, CI 95% 3,2%-18%). Four of these were intravascular and 2 in the right atrium. CEUS identified only 3 misplacements, of which 1 was intravascular and 2 intracardiac. Using CXR as a reference standard, and considering intravascular and intracardiac malpositioning altogether, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio of CEUS were 33% (95% CI, 0%-71%), 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%), 21%, 7%, 0%, and 68%, respectively. The negative and positive predictive values were 94% (95% CI, 89%-100%) and 67% (95% CI, 13%-100%). Principal conclusionsCEUS can't substitute CXR, or become a triage test in selected patients, in evaluating the correct tip position after CVL placement.

Verification of correct central venous catheter placement in the emergency department: comparison between ultrasonography and chest radiography

In 210 consecutive patients undergoing emergency central venous catheterization, we studied whether an ultrasonography examination performed at the bedside by an emergency physician can be an alternative method to chest X-ray study to verify the correct central venous catheter placement, and to identify mechanical complications. A prospective, blinded, observational study was performed, from January 2009 to December 2011, in the emergency department of a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Ultrasonography interpretation was completed during image acquisition; ultrasound scan was performed in 5 ± 3 min, whereas the time interval between chest radiograph request and its final interpretation was 65 ± 74 min p < 0.0001. We found a high concordance between the two diagnostic modalities in the identification of catheter position (Kappa = 82 %, p < 0.0001), and their ability to identify a possible wrong position showed a high correlation (Pearson's r = 0.76 %, p < 0.0001) with a sensitivity of 94 %, a specificity of 89 % for ultrasonography. Regarding the mechanical complications, three iatrogenic pneumothoraces occurred, all were correctly identified by ultrasonography and confirmed by chest radiography (sensitivity 100 %). Our study showed a high correlation between these two modalities to identify possible malpositioning of a catheter resulting from cannulation of central veins, and its complications. The less time required to perform ultrasonography allows earlier use of the catheter for the administration of acute therapies that can be life-saving for the critically ill patients.

Comparison of the bedside central venous catheter placement techniques: landmark vs electrocardiogram guidance

Electrocardiogram (ECG)-guided central venous catheter (CVC) placement has been reported to be accurate and successful. It has been shown that the CVC tip can be reliably placed at the level of the carina using a simple formula based on the puncture site, the 'brachiocephalic notch' on the clavicle, and the carina as landmarks. This study was performed to compare the accuracy of CVC tip localization between ECG- and landmark-guided catheterization. Patients were randomized either to the ECG (n=121) or to the landmark (n=128) group. All catheterizations were performed via the right internal jugular vein (IJV). In the ECG group, CVCs were placed where P-wave returned to a normal configuration on right atrial ECG. In the landmark group, CVCs were placed at a depth derived by adding the distance between insertion point and the notch on the clavicle and the vertical length between the notch and the carina on a routine chest radiograph. On the postoperative portable chest radiograph, incidences of correct CVC tip position, defined as in the superior vena cava, were checked. CVCs were correctly placed in 96.1% of the landmark group (123/128) and in 95.9% of the ECG group (116/121). The mean CVC tip position relative to the carina was 0.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.19] cm in the landmark group and 0.0 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.28) cm in the ECG group. During central venous catheterization via the right IJV, landmark guidance was comparable with ECG guidance with regard to CVC tip positioning in the superior vena cava.

Atrial Electrocardiogram for Verification of Correct Central Venous Catheter Placement

Atrial Electrocardiogram for Verification of Correct Central Venous Catheter Placement

Atrial Electrocardiogram for Verification of Correct Central Venous Catheter Placement

Atrial Electrocardiogram for Verification of Correct Central Venous Catheter Placement

Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters without Fluoroscopy in Children: Initial Catheter Tip Position

To determine how often placement of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) without imaging guidance results in an initially correct central venous catheter tip location. This study was approved by the hospital's institutional review board, which waived the requirement for informed consent. In a children's hospital, 843 PICCs were placed in 698 patients (age range, 0 days to 26 years; mean, 6.9 years) during a 14-month study period. All PICCs were placed by a specialized team of PICC nurses and interventional radiology technologists in an angiography suite with the supervision of pediatric interventional radiologists. All catheters were threaded blindly to a previously estimated length by either a PICC nurse or a pediatric interventional radiologist, according to National Association of Vascular Access Networks guidelines, and the initial PICC tip location was then determined by means of spot fluoroscopy. PICC tips were regarded as central if they resided anywhere within the superior vena cava (SVC). All catheters were then manipulated with intermittent fluoroscopic guidance to achieve a final central position in the distal third of the SVC. A chi2 test was used to compare initial and final PICC tip locations according to patient age, catheter size, accessed vein, and need for radiologist assistance. A t test was used to compare procedure time with and without radiologist assistance. Analysis included 843 consecutively placed pediatric PICCs, of which 723 (85.8%) had a noncentral initial PICC tip position and required additional manipulation. After catheter repositioning performed with intermittent fluoroscopic guidance, a final central PICC tip location was achieved in 760 PICCs (90.2%). Pediatric PICC placement without fluoroscopic guidance required catheter manipulation of initial PICC tip position in 723 cases (85.8%). PICC placement with fluoroscopic guidance is highly successful, and the authors believe it is best performed in an angiography suite.

Applied anatomy of the superior vena cava—the carina as a landmark to guide central venous catheter placement

Cardiac tamponade is a serious complication of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion. Current guidelines strongly advise that the CVC tip should be located in the superior vena cava (SVC) and outside the pericardial sac. This may be difficult to verify as the exact location of the pericardium cannot be seen on a normal chest x-ray. The carina is an alternative radiographic marker for correct CVC placement, suggested on the basis of studies of embalmed cadavers. We set out to confirm this radiographic landmark in 39 fresh cadavers (age 58.4 (3.4) (mean and SE) yr) and to compare the results with those from ethanol-formalin-fixed cadavers. We found that the carina was 0.8 (0.05) cm above the pericardial sac as it transverses the SVC. In no case was the carina inferior to the pericardial reflection and our study confirmed the previous findings. All the measured distances were significantly greater in fresh cadavers. We confirm that the carina is a reliable, simple anatomical landmark that can be identified in vivo for the correct placement of CVCs outside the boundaries of the pericardial sac.