Intraoperative Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter Central Venous Pressure Monitoring in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Reconstruction

Numerous studies have found no clinically significant benefit to the perioperative use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs), and peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) have been reported to measure central venous pressure (CVP) accurately. The objective of this study was to determine...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of vascular surgery 2006-09, Vol.20 (5), p.577-581
Hauptverfasser: McLemore, Elisabeth C., Tessier, Devon J., Rady, Mohamed Y., Larson, Joel S., Mueller, Jeff T., Stone, William M., Fowl, Richard J., Patel, Bhavesh M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Numerous studies have found no clinically significant benefit to the perioperative use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs), and peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) have been reported to measure central venous pressure (CVP) accurately. The objective of this study was to determine whether the dynamic shifts in preload associated with elective reconstruction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are accurately reflected by CVP measurements from open-ended PICCs compared to CVP measurements from concomitant indwelling PACs. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PICCs and PACs were placed preoperatively in five patients undergoing elective AAA reconstruction. CVP measurements were recorded every 15 min during the operation. Bland-Altman statistical analysis was used to determine the degree of agreement in data collected by the two measurement devices. Seventy-three paired measurements of CVP from concomitant indwelling PICCs and PACs obtained from five patients undergoing elective AAA reconstruction revealed PICC measurements to be higher than PAC measurements by 0.6 mm Hg (overall correlation coefficient 0.92). The difference between the two measurement devices was expected to be
ISSN:0890-5096
1615-5947
DOI:10.1007/S10016-006-9108-x