Comparison of the central venous pressure from internal jugular vein and the pressure measured from the peripherally inserted antecubital central catheter (PICCP) in liver transplantation recipients.
10.4097/kjae.2011.61.4.281
- Author:
Jung Yeon YUN
1
;
So Hee PARK
;
Dae Soon CHO
;
Hae Jeung JEUNG
;
Soon Ae LEE
;
So Jin SEO
Author Information
1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. yaeppun@korea.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
CVP;
Liver transplantation;
Peripherally inserted central catheter pressure
- MeSH:
Adult;
Catheters;
Central Venous Catheters;
Central Venous Pressure;
Compliance;
Hemodynamics;
Humans;
Jugular Veins;
Linear Models;
Liver;
Liver Transplantation;
Reperfusion
- From:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
2011;61(4):281-287
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Unlike its use during stable conditions, central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring from a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) has not often been used in surgeries with significant hemodynamic alterations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of measuring PICC pressure (PICCP) as an alternative to measuring centrally inserted central catheter pressure (CICCP) in adult liver transplantation (LT) patients. METHODS: We measured PICCP and CICCP simultaneously during each main surgical period in adult LT. Statistical analysis was performed using simple linear regression analysis to observe whether changes in PICCP paralleled by simultaneous changes in CICCP. Correlation analysis and Bland-Altman analysis were used to determine the degree of agreement between the two devices. Differences were considered statistically significant when P values were less than 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1342 data pairs were collected from 35 patients. The PICCPs and CICCPs were highly correlated overall (r = 0.970, P < 0.001) as well as at each period measured. The differences among each period were not clinically significant (0.33 mmHg for pre-anhepatic, 0.32 mmHg for anhepatic, -0.15 mmHg for reperfusion, and -0.10 mmHg for neohepatic periods). The overall mean difference was 0.14 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.19) and PICCP tended to give a higher reading by between 0.09 and 0.19 mmHg overall. The limit of agreement was -1.74 to 2.02 overall. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that PICCP can be a reasonable alternative to CICCP in situations of dynamic systemic compliance and preload, as well as under stable hemodynamic conditions.
