Elsevier

Resuscitation

Volume 83, Issue 6, June 2012, Pages 705-709
Resuscitation

Clinical Paper
Comparison of ultrasound and X-ray in determining the position of umbilical venous catheters

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.11.026Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

Thoraco-abdominal X-ray (TAX) is the most frequent used method to determine the route and tip position (TP) of umbilical venous catheters (UVCs). The aim of this study was to compare ability of TAX and ultrasonography (US) to determine UVC route and TP.

Patients and methods

All neonates requiring UVC or admitted to our Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care with UVC were included in this prospective study. Catheter position was controlled by TAX and interpreted by the physician in charge of the patient. US examinations were performed by a paediatric radiologist blinded to TAX result. The UVC route (central or not central) and TP determined by each method were compared to the “actual UVC route and TP”, as determined by senior paediatric radiologist and neonatologist referents joint interpretation of TAX and US results.

Results

Sixty-one UVCs were assessed in 60 neonates of mean gestational age of 34.7 ± 4.2 weeks. To determine catheter route, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 96.4% and 93.9% for US and 92.8% and 78.8% for TAX. To determine catheter tip position, sensitivity and specificity were respectively 93.3% and 95.6% for US and 66.7% and 63.0% for TAX (p < 0.001). Failure of TAX to define UVC tip position increased with birth weight (p < 0.005).

Conclusion

TAX and US are reliable in determining UVC route (central or not) but US examination is superior to TAX in determining UVC TP.

Introduction

The umbilical vein is the easiest and most-used central venous access during neonatal resuscitation. The catheter is introduced into the umbilical vein, joining the inferior vena cava (IVC) via the venous portal system, and the ductus venosus (DV). The adequate tip position (TP) of the umbilical venous catheter (UVC) is the junction of the right atrium (RA) and IVC or the thoracic portion of the IVC, but misplacement is frequent. Echocardiographic examination led to UVC replacement in 56% of cases,1 and a more recent work found that only 23% of the UVCs were adequately positioned.2 In case of excessive length insertion, the catheter may be introduced into the RA, right ventricle (RV) or left atrium (LA) through the foramen ovale. Sometimes, the catheter may follow a branch of the portal vein (BPV) and assume an intrahepatic position. Misplacement is responsible for potential serious complications, such as myocardial traumatic damage, intracardiac thrombosis, arrhythmia, endocarditis, portal vein thrombosis or hepatic necrosis if vasopressors are infused into the portal vein.3 The optimal length of insertion may be estimated by a regression equation based on birth weight4 or shoulder–umbilical distance5 but these methods remain imprecise6 and do not show to the clinician the exact route of the catheter. Thus, the catheter TP must be confirmed, with thoraco-abdominal antero-posterior X-rays (TAX) being the method most frequently used. TAX may be improved by lateral X-ray, blood gas analysis or pressure monitoring.1 Ultrasonography (US) is increasingly used in intensive care, and has been shown useful in central catheter insertion and control of the TP.7, 8 Although US has been shown feasible as a replacement for TAX, the initial studies included only small numbers of patients.9 While two larger studies confirmed these results, the first2 was not designed to compare US with TAX, whereas the second focused on echocardiography and catheters that cross the DV.9 Since these findings suggested that US can be used as an adjunct to TAX, we prospectively compared the ability of US and TAX to determine UVC route and TP in newborns. We hypothesized that US was more accurate than TAX in this setting.

Section snippets

Methods

This study was performed between February 2008 and February 2009 in a 16 bed Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of a university hospital. All newborns requiring UVC or admitted to the unit with an UVC were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of thoracic and/or abdominal malformation or withdrawal of parent's consent. UVCs inserted in the unit were placed by a junior or senior intensivist, with length of insertion determined using a regression equation based

Results

Sixty-one UVCs were studied in 60 neonates. Mean gestational age was 34.7 ± 4.2 weeks and mean birth weight was 2496 ± 1081 g. Twenty UVCs were placed before admission in the NICU, and 41 were placed in our NICU. The quality of examination was assessed as good in 59 (97%) and 57 (93.4%) UVCs placements, for US and TAX respectively. Resident and senior radiologist findings were concordant in 30 of 31 placements (97%).

Discussion

In the present study, we have found that US is more accurate than TAX in determining UVC route and TP. UVCs allow rapid and painless central venous access, but can cause many complications, which are mostly linked to catheter misplacement.14, 15 Therefore clinicians must check accurately the correct IVC position of UVCs once inserted. The first difficulty is to cross the DV to obtain a central venous access. We found that only 45.9% of UVCs had a central route. These findings reveal the

Conclusion

Our results showed that TAX adequately determined UVC route but was not efficient in determining UVC TP, particularly in neonates with high birth weight. We now systematically control catheter position using US in our unit. US examination is not available in all NICUs, but we encourage NICU practitioners to develop this technique. Our results indicate that US should replace TAX for determining UVC route and tip position in most neonates.

Financial support

None.

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs Karine Baumstarck and Anderson Loundou of the Unité d’Aide Méthodologique à la Recherche Clinique; Laboratoire de Santé Publique, Faculté de Médecine, Aix-Marseille Université, for statistical assistance.

References (24)

  • M. Greenberg et al.

    Placement of umbilical venous catheters with use of bedside real-time ultrasonography

    J Pediatr

    (1995)
  • M.C. Hermansen et al.

    Intravascular catheter complications in the neonatal intensive care unit

    Clin Perinatol

    (2005)
  • S.Y. Lee et al.

    Ultrasound and other imaging technologies in the intensive care unit

    Surg Clin North Am

    (2000)
  • A. Ades et al.

    Echocardiographic evaluation of umbilical venous catheter placement

    J Perinatol

    (2003)
  • H. Shukla et al.

    Rapid estimation of insertional length of umbilical catheters in newborns

    Am J Dis Child

    (1986)
  • P.M. Dunn

    Localization of the umbilical catheter by post-mortem measurement

    Arch Dis Child

    (1966)
  • G.H. Verheij et al.

    Poor accuracy of methods currently used to determine umbilical catheter insertion length

    Int J Pediatr

    (2010)
  • A. Vezzani et al.

    Ultrasound localization of central vein catheter and detection of postprocedural pneumothorax: an alternative to chest radiography

    Crit Care Med

    (2010)
  • C.D. Froehlich et al.

    Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement decreases complications and decreases placement attempts compared with the landmark technique in patients in a pediatric intensive care unit

    Crit Care Med

    (2009)
  • L. George et al.

    Umbilical vascular catheters: localization by two-dimensional echocardio/aortography

    Pediatr Cardiol

    (1982)
  • A.E. Schlesinger et al.

    Pictorial essay. Neonates and umbilical venous catheters: normal appearance, anomalous positions, complications, and potential aid to diagnosis

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2003)
  • D. Machin et al.

    Sample size tables for clinical studies

    (1997)
  • Cited by (0)

    A Spanish translated version of the summary of this article appears as Appendix in the final online version at doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.11.026.

    View full text