MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4309810775 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7350413

Validity of ultrasonography in detection of central venous catheter position and pneumothorax compared to portable chest X-ray

2022· article· en· W4309810775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Megahed, Tamer N. Zakhary, Mohamed Abd-Elalim Abd-Elhady, Haitham G. Zaki

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumothoraxUltrasonographyMedicineCentral venous catheterCatheterRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Ultrasonographic guidance for insertion of central venous catheter is now almost a standard of care, leading to fewer failed attempts and complications. Nowadays, the ultrasound examination used to detect position of the central line and pneumothorax occurrence as an alternative to X-ray. The aim of this work is to assess validity of ultrasonography and portable chest X-ray in detection of central venous catheter position and post-central line insertion pneumothorax. The study was carried out on one hundred catheter insertions for patients who were admitted to Critical Care Medicine Department in Alexandria Main University Hospital. Confirmation of endovenous placement of the catheter was done by ultrasonography using “Bubble test” and examination of internal jugular veins and subclavian veins of both sides. Then, lung ultrasound was done to detect pneumothorax occurrence. After that, a portable chest X-ray film was done for all patients to detect the catheter tip position and presence of pneumothorax. Then, Computed tomography of the chest was done for all patients after their hemodynamics stabilization to confirm the previous data and compare accuracy of the ultrasound and X-ray to detect catheter tip position and post-insertion pneumothorax. The researcher found that there is statistically significant correlation between site of insertion and incidence of post-insertion pneumothorax occurrence (80% with subclavian approach versus 20% for internal jugular approach). In detection of the catheter position, the ultrasound showed sensitivity and specificity of 82.7%, 96.8% respectively versus 93.8%, 95.8% respectively for portable X-ray. Furthermore, in detection of post-insertion pneumothorax, the ultrasound showed sensitivity and specificity of 90%, 96.3% respectively versus 45%, 96.3% respectively for portable chest X-ray. We can use the ultrasound to detect position of catheter tip and pneumothorax after insertion of central line as a better alternative to routine portable chest X-ray with higher accuracy. Keywords : Ultrasound, central venous catheter, portable chest X-ray, pneumothorax, catheter position, CT chest. REFERENCES O'Grady NP, Alexander M and Dellinger EP. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002; 51:1-18. Irwin RS and Rippe's JM. Procedures and Techniques: in Intensive Care Medicine. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Company 2003:17-18. Ng PK, Ault MJ and Maldonado LS. Peripherally inserted central catheters in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med 1996; 11:49-52. Linos DA, Mucha P and Van Heerden JA. Subclavian vein: a golden route. Mayo Clin Proc 1980; 55:315. Merrell SW, Peatross BG and Grossman MD. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters: low-risk alternatives for ongoing venous access. West J Med 1994; 160:259. Lam S, Scannell R and Roessler D. Peripherally inserted central catheters in an acute-care hospital. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:1833-9. Kondro WA. Alberta retreats over sterilisation compensation. Lancet 1998; 351:892. Hall JB, Shmidt GA and Wood LD. Intravascular Devices: in Principles Of critical Care. 3rd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Company 2005:131-138. De Lorenzo RA, Morris MJ, Williams JB, et al. Does a simple bedside sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava correlate to central venous pressure?. J Emerg Med 2012; 42(4):429-36. Dubick MA. Small-volume fluid resuscitation for the far-forward combat environment: current concepts. J Trauma 2003; 54(5 Suppl): s43–5. Porika Raju and Estari Mamidala (2015). Anti-diabetic activity of compound isolated from Physalis angulata fruit extracts in alloxan induced diabetic rats. The Ame J Sci & Med Res, 2015,1(1); Pages 1 -6. doi:10.17812/ajsmr2015.11.1. Lichtenstein D and Mezière G. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: The BLUE Protocol. Chest 2008; 134:117-25. Magder S. How to use central venous pressure measurements. Current Opinion in Critical Care 2005; 11(3):264-70. Eisen LA, Narasimhan M, Berger JS, et al. Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med. 2006 Jan-Feb; 21(1):40-6. Wolfram Schummer, Claudia Schummer, Norman Rose, et al. Mechanical complications and malpositions of central venous cannulations by experienced operators. Intensive Care Medicine 33(6):1055-9. Alonso-Quintela P, Oulego-Erroz, Rodriguez-Blanco S, et al. Location of the Central Venous Catheter Tip With Bedside Ultrasound in Young Children: Can We Eliminate the Need for Chest Radiography?. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Nov; 16(9):e340-5. Duran-Gehring PE, Guirgis FW, McKee KC, et al. The bubble study: ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter placement. Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar; 33(3):315-9. Kamalipour, Hamid, Sedigheh Ahmadi, Karmella Kamali, et al. "Ultrasound for Localization of Central Venous Catheter: A Good Alternative to Chest X-Ray?." Anesthesiology and Pain Med 2016; 6(5):e38834. Uzma Mumtaz, Zainab Zahur, Muhammad Amjad Chaudhry, et al. Bedside ultrasongraphy: a useful tool for traumatic pneumothorax. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2016 Jun; 26(6):459-62. S Manimala Rao, et al. “Can we predict the Position of Central Venous Catheter Tip Following Cannulation of Internal Jugular Vein?. EC Anaesthesia 2015; 2(3):126-30.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→