MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404446095 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v9i2.17366

Sonographic Detection of Iatrogenic Carotid Artery Guidewires During Internal Jugular Vein Catheterization

2024· article· en· W4404446095 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James H. Moak, Kristen Swann, Matthew Kongkatong, Jakob Ottenhoff, Christopher Thom

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal jugular veinCarotid arteriesProspective cohort studyPredictive valueUltrasoundCommon carotid arteryInternal carotid arteryObservational studyGold standard (test)Jugular veinVeinRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Visualization of the guidewire during internal jugular (IJ) vein catheterization by point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has been recommended for avoiding inadvertent carotid artery dilation. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of POCUS for identifying guidewires inappropriately placed in the carotid artery. Methods: This prospective, observational study involved emergency medicine (EM) residents with varying experience in guidewire visualization. Using an inanimate model, investigators placed guidewires randomly into the carotid artery or IJ vein. Residents, blinded to guidewire location, scanned the model and recorded their findings. The test performance of POCUS for arterially placed guidewires was evaluated through calculation of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and overall accuracy, using investigator placement as the non-reference standard. Results: Twenty-five residents performed 51 observations. The test performance of POCUS for identifying arterially placed guidewires was sensitivity 95.0% (95%CI = 73.1-99.7%), specificity 96.8% (95%CI = 81.5-99.8%), NPV 96.8% (95%CI = 81.5-99.8%), and PPV 95.0% (95%CI = 73.1-99.7%). The overall accuracy was 96.1% (95%CI = 86.8-98.9%). Residents reported being very confident in their findings in 88.2% of all observations (95%CI = 76.6-94.5%), somewhat confident in 9.8% (95%CI = 4.3-21.0%), and not very confident in 2.0% (95%CI = 0.4-10.3%). No errors occurred among upper-level residents (post-graduate years 2-3) or those reporting >5 prior wire visualizations in live patients. Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate that physicians can easily identify misplaced guidewires located in the carotid artery with a high degree of accuracy using POCUS. We recommend routine scanning of the IJ vein and carotid artery prior to vessel dilation to reduce the likelihood of carotid artery injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207