Location of the Central Venous Catheter Tip With Bedside Ultrasound in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of bedside ultrasound and chest radiography to verify central venous catheter tip positioning. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: PICU of a university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients aged 0-14 who required a central venous catheter. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Central venous catheter tip location was confirmed by ultrasound and chest radiography. Central venous catheters were classified as intra-atrial or extra-atrial according to their positions in relation to the cavoatrial junction. Central venous catheters located outside the vena cava were considered malpositioned. The distance between the catheter tip and the cavoatrial junction was measured. The time elapsed from image capture to interpretation was recorded. Fifty-one central venous catheters in 40 patients were analyzed. Chest radiography and ultrasound results agreed 94% of the time (κ coefficient, 0.638; p < 0.001) in determining intra-atrial and extra-atrial locations and 92% of the time in determining the diagnosis of central venous catheter malposition (κ coefficient, 0.670; p < 0.001). Chest radiography indicated a greater distance between the central venous catheter tip and the cavoatrial junction than measured by ultrasound, with a mean difference of 0.38 cm (95% CI, +0.27, +0.48 cm). Three central venous catheters were classified as extra-atrial by chest radiography but as intra-atrial by ultrasound. To locate the central venous catheter tip, ultrasound required less time than chest radiography (22.96 min [20.43 min] vs 2.23 min [1.06 min]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bedside ultrasound showed a good agreement with chest radiography in detecting central venous catheter tip location and revealing incorrect positions. Ultrasound could be a preferable method for routine verification of central venous catheter tip and can contribute to increased patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".