Purposes We 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 Procedures CEUS 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 Findings CXR 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 conclusions CEUS can't substitute CXR, or become a triage test in selected patients, in evaluating the correct tip position after CVL placement.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound vs chest X-ray to determine correct central venous catheter position / F. Cortellaro, L. Mellace, S. Paglia, G. Costantino, S. Sher, D. Coen. - In: THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE. - ISSN 0735-6757. - 32:1(2014), pp. 78-81. [10.1016/j.ajem.2013.10.001]

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

L. Mellace;G. Costantino;S. Sher;
2014

Abstract

Purposes We 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 Procedures CEUS 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 Findings CXR 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 conclusions CEUS can't substitute CXR, or become a triage test in selected patients, in evaluating the correct tip position after CVL placement.
Aged; Catheterization, Central Venous; Contrast Media; Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Radiography, Interventional; Radiography, Thoracic; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Emergency Medicine
Settore MED/09 - Medicina Interna
2014
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0735675713006694-main.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 656.11 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
656.11 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/617780
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 31
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact