Dose Intraoperative Fluoroscopy Precisely Predict Catheter Tip Location via Superior Vena Cava Route?

Adequate catheter tip location is crucial for functional intravenous port and central venous catheter. Numerous complications were reported because of catheter migration that caused by inadequate tip location. Different guidelines recommend different ideal locations without consensus. Another debate is actual movement of intravascular portion of implanted catheter. From literature review, the catheter migrated peripherally an average of 20 mm on the erect chest radiographs. In this study, we want to verify the actual presentation of catheter movement within a vessel and try to find a quantitative catheter length model to recommend.From March 2012 to March 2013, 346 patients were included into this prospective cohort study. We collect clinical data from medical record and utilized picture archiving and communication system to measure all image parameters. Statistical analysis was utilized to identify the risk factors for catheter migration.The nonmigration group had 221 patients (63.9%); 67 (19.4%) patients were classified into the peripheral migration group; and 58 (16.8%) patients were classified into the central migration group. Patients with short height (P = 0.03), larger superior vena cava (SVC) diameters at the brachiocephalic vein confluence site (P = 0.02), and longer implanted catheter length (P = 0.0004) had greater risks for central migration. We utilized regression curve for further analysis and height (centimeters)/10 had moderate correlation distances from the entry vessel to the carina.Although intravascular movement of catheter was exist in implanted catheter, the intraoperative fluoroscopy could provide accurate catheter tip location in 63.9% patients. Additional length of catheter implantation seems unnecessary in 80.6% patients. Patients with short height, larger SVC diameters at the brachiocephalic vein confluence site had greater risk for catheter central movement. Height/10 may be consider as reference length of implantation for inexperience surgeon and precise implantation length could be adjust under guidance of fluoroscopy.

Diameter change of common femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair with the use of the preclose technique.

OBJECTIVE: One of the major concerns regarding the preclose technique is its influence on the diameter of the accessed common femoral artery (CFA). The aim of our study was to evaluate the CFA diameter change after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) with the use of the preclose technique. METHODS: From February 2012 to September 2013, 192 patients who underwent PEVAR with the preclose technique were reviewed. The patients were followed postoperatively with computed tomographic angiography 1, 6, and 12 months after PEVAR, and only those with complete computed tomography studies were included. For each access site, the inner diameter (ID) and outer diameter (OD) of the CFA were measured, and the diameters at various time periods were compared. In addition, the patient cohort was divided into four subgroups according to two parameters: the sheath size (12-16F and 18-24F) and the number of closure devices used for the preclose technique (two devices, more than two devices). The differences in diameter change between the subgroups were analyzed. The significance of the diameter change and the influences of the two parameters were analyzed statistically with the use of the paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients fulfilled the study criteria. No significant influence on the ID of the accessed CFAs was observed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months (9.0 ± 1.75 mm, 9.1 ± 1.70 mm, 8.9 ± 1.72 mm, and 9.0 ± 1.68 mm, respectively). By contrast, a significant increase in initial OD occurred 1 month after PEVAR but gradually decreased in size in the following 11 months (13.0 ± 2.37 mm, 16.4 ± 3.44 mm, 14.2 ± 3.06 mm, and 13.5 ± 2.42 mm, respectively). Both the sheath size and the number of closure devices significantly affected the OD change (P < .001 and P = .037, respectively). The effect produced by the number of closure devices extended to 6 months after PEVAR, but the effect of the sheath size ceased before that time. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that PEVAR with the use of the preclose technique does not influence the ID of the accessed CFA, whereas the OD changes gradually over 1 year. These results may indicate that future endovascular interventions can be performed with the use of the same access without the risk of vascular narrowing.