SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING

Objective: To find the correlation between thoracic and femoral central venous pressure (CVP) and changes in femoral CVP, if any, incurred by intra-abdominal pressure. Study Design: Cross sectional observational study. Place and Duration of Study: Coronary care unit of National Institute of Ca...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Muhammad Imran Ansari, Jawed Abubaker, Syed Zia Ullah, Adeel Sohail, Aziz Ur Rehman, Shazia Ahmad, Musa Karim
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Army Medical College Rawalpindi 2019
Materias:
R
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/fd72cfe0bea449e499cfe56fe3ab73e5
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:fd72cfe0bea449e499cfe56fe3ab73e5
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:fd72cfe0bea449e499cfe56fe3ab73e52021-11-11T06:03:49ZSITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING0030-96482411-8842https://doaj.org/article/fd72cfe0bea449e499cfe56fe3ab73e52019-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.pafmj.org/index.php/PAFMJ/article/view/3014/2252https://doaj.org/toc/0030-9648https://doaj.org/toc/2411-8842Objective: To find the correlation between thoracic and femoral central venous pressure (CVP) and changes in femoral CVP, if any, incurred by intra-abdominal pressure. Study Design: Cross sectional observational study. Place and Duration of Study: Coronary care unit of National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Karachi, from Jul 2017 to Sep 2017. Material and Methods: We randomly selected 90 patients who had a thoracic central catheter and another femoral catheter in place. A central venous pressure (CVP) pressure was recorded at both sites simultaneously with the same electronic transducer after zero calibration. An intra-abdominal pressure was also noted. Results: Ninety patients participated in our study where mean age was 58.90 ± 11.34 years. The mean thoracic CVP was 11.22 ± 3.53 mmHg while mean femoral CVP was 11.38 ± 3.53 mmHg, with a mean pressure difference of -0.16 mmHg between the two. We also calculated intra-abdominal pressure with mean of 6.20 ± 2.47 mmHg. The reliability of the two methods was determined by intra class coefficient model where we got a higher value of 0.97 with significant p-value of <0.001. We analyzed the limits of agreement between the two approaches by Bland and Altman plot, where the mean difference between thoracic and femoral CVP was -0.16 mmHg (95 % CI - 0.34 - 0.02). Conclusion: Central venous pressure can be reliably and accurately measured through femoral site.Muhammad Imran AnsariJawed AbubakerSyed Zia UllahAdeel SohailAziz Ur RehmanShazia AhmadMusa KarimArmy Medical College Rawalpindiarticlecentral venous pressurecritical illnessfemoral veinintra-abdominal pressureMedicineRMedicine (General)R5-920ENPakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, Vol 69, Iss 3, Pp 490-494 (2019)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic central venous pressure
critical illness
femoral vein
intra-abdominal pressure
Medicine
R
Medicine (General)
R5-920
spellingShingle central venous pressure
critical illness
femoral vein
intra-abdominal pressure
Medicine
R
Medicine (General)
R5-920
Muhammad Imran Ansari
Jawed Abubaker
Syed Zia Ullah
Adeel Sohail
Aziz Ur Rehman
Shazia Ahmad
Musa Karim
SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
description Objective: To find the correlation between thoracic and femoral central venous pressure (CVP) and changes in femoral CVP, if any, incurred by intra-abdominal pressure. Study Design: Cross sectional observational study. Place and Duration of Study: Coronary care unit of National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Karachi, from Jul 2017 to Sep 2017. Material and Methods: We randomly selected 90 patients who had a thoracic central catheter and another femoral catheter in place. A central venous pressure (CVP) pressure was recorded at both sites simultaneously with the same electronic transducer after zero calibration. An intra-abdominal pressure was also noted. Results: Ninety patients participated in our study where mean age was 58.90 ± 11.34 years. The mean thoracic CVP was 11.22 ± 3.53 mmHg while mean femoral CVP was 11.38 ± 3.53 mmHg, with a mean pressure difference of -0.16 mmHg between the two. We also calculated intra-abdominal pressure with mean of 6.20 ± 2.47 mmHg. The reliability of the two methods was determined by intra class coefficient model where we got a higher value of 0.97 with significant p-value of <0.001. We analyzed the limits of agreement between the two approaches by Bland and Altman plot, where the mean difference between thoracic and femoral CVP was -0.16 mmHg (95 % CI - 0.34 - 0.02). Conclusion: Central venous pressure can be reliably and accurately measured through femoral site.
format article
author Muhammad Imran Ansari
Jawed Abubaker
Syed Zia Ullah
Adeel Sohail
Aziz Ur Rehman
Shazia Ahmad
Musa Karim
author_facet Muhammad Imran Ansari
Jawed Abubaker
Syed Zia Ullah
Adeel Sohail
Aziz Ur Rehman
Shazia Ahmad
Musa Karim
author_sort Muhammad Imran Ansari
title SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
title_short SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
title_full SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
title_fullStr SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
title_full_unstemmed SITE OF CENTRAL VENOUS ACCESS IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR FLUID RESUSCITATION AND MONITORING
title_sort site of central venous access is not important for fluid resuscitation and monitoring
publisher Army Medical College Rawalpindi
publishDate 2019
url https://doaj.org/article/fd72cfe0bea449e499cfe56fe3ab73e5
work_keys_str_mv AT muhammadimranansari siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT jawedabubaker siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT syedziaullah siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT adeelsohail siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT azizurrehman siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT shaziaahmad siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
AT musakarim siteofcentralvenousaccessisnotimportantforfluidresuscitationandmonitoring
_version_ 1718439555847159808