Search

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters are increasingly used in ICU as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters for IV infusion. However, their reliability for hemodynamic measurements with transpulmonary thermodilution is currently unknown. We investigated the agreement between transpulmonary thermodilution measurements obtained with bolus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter (reference standard) using a transpulmonary thermodilution-calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000)., Design: Prospective method-comparison study., Setting: Twenty-bed medical-surgical ICU of a teaching hospital., Patients: Twenty adult ICU patients who required hemodynamic monitoring because of hemodynamic instability and had both peripherally inserted central catheter and centrally inserted central catheter in place., Intervention: The hemodynamic measurements obtained by transpulmonary thermodilution after injection of a cold saline bolus via both centrally inserted central catheter and either a single-lumen 4F or a double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter using were compared. In order to rule out bias related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 320 measurements were made. Cardiac index was significantly higher when measured with double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter than with centrally inserted central catheter (mean, 4.5 vs 3.3 L/min/m; p < 0.0001; bias, 1.24 L/min/m [0.27, 2.22 L/min/m]; bias percentage, 31%). Global end-diastolic index, extravascular lung water index, and stroke volume index were also overestimated (853 ± 240 vs 688 ± 175 mL/m, 12.2 ± 4.2 vs 9.4 ± 2.9 mL/kg, and 49.6 ± 14.9 vs 39.5 ± 9.6 mL/m, respectively; p < 0.0001). Lower, albeit significant differences were found using single-lumen 4F peripherally inserted central catheter (mean cardiac index, 4.2 vs 3.7 L/min/m; p = 0.043; bias, 0.51 L/min/m [-0.53, 1.55 L/min/m]; bias percentage, 12.7%). All differences were confirmed, even after standardization of bolus speed with automated injection., Conclusions: Bolus injection through peripherally inserted central catheter for transpulmonary thermodilution using EV1000 led to a significant overestimation of cardiac index, global end-diastolic index, extravascular lung water index, and stroke volume index, especially when double-lumen 5F peripherally inserted central catheter was used (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT03834675).

Background: Single-lumen 4Fr or double-lumen 5Fr power injectable peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are not accurate for trans-pulmonary thermodilution (TPTD), since they overestimate cardiac index and other TPTD-derived parameters when compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) because of the smaller size of their lumen. We hypothesize that PICCs with larger lumen size may be reliable for the cardiac index assessment using the TPTD. Methods: This is a single-centre, prospective method–comparison study that included adult patients admitted in ICU who required a calibrated Pulse Contour hemodynamic monitoring system (VolumeView/EV1000™) for circulatory shock and had both PICC and CICC in place. We compared TPTD measurements via single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr polyurethane power injectable PICCs with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (reference standard). To rule out biases related to manual injection, measurements were repeated using an automated rapid injection system. We performed Bland–Altman analysis accounting for multiple observations per patient. Results: A total of 320 measurements were performed in 15 patients. During the manual phase, the cardiac index measured with either single-lumen 5Fr or triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs were comparable with cardiac index measured with triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (3.2 ± 1.04 vs. 3.2 ± 1.06 L/min/m2, bias 2.2% and 3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7 L/min/m2, bias 8.5%, respectively). During the automated phase, triple-lumen 6Fr PICC slightly overestimated the cardiac index when compared to triple-lumen 7Fr CICC (CI 3.4 ± 0.7 vs. 3.0 ± 0.7 L/min/m2, bias 12.5%; p = 0.012). For both single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs, percentage error vs. triple-lumen 7Fr CICC was below 20% (14.7% and 19% during the manual phase and 14.4% and 13.8% during the automated phase, respectively). Similar results were observed for TPTD-derived parameters. Conclusions: During hemodynamic monitoring with TPTD, both single-lumen 5Fr PICCs and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs can be used for cold fluid bolus injection as an alternative to CICC (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04241926). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]