Are single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs suitable for hemodynamic assessment by trans-pulmonary thermodilution? A pilot study

Sonia D’Arrigo, Claudio Sandroni, Sofia Cacciola, Antonio Maria Dell’Anna, Mauro Pittiruti, Maria Giuseppina Annetta, Cesare Colosimo, Massimo Antonelli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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).

Original languageEnglish
Article number165
JournalAnnals of Intensive Care
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2020

Keywords

  • Cardiac output
  • Centrally inserted central catheter
  • Hemodynamic monitoring
  • Intensive care unit
  • Peripherally inserted central catheter
  • Trans-pulmonary thermodilution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Are single-lumen 5Fr and triple-lumen 6Fr PICCs suitable for hemodynamic assessment by trans-pulmonary thermodilution? A pilot study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this