Necrotizing fasciitis on a peripherally inserted central venous catheter site

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (11) ◽  
pp. 1303-1304
Author(s):  
Masashi Inoue ◽  
Narimi Miyazaki ◽  
Hiyoyuki Suematsu ◽  
Yuka Yamagishi ◽  
Hiroshige Mikamo
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Necrotizing Fasciitis ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Site

Necrotizing Fasciitis after Central Venous Catheter Placement

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 850-852
Author(s):  
Nico Leibig ◽  
Christoph Hirche ◽  
Volker J. Schmidt ◽  
Amir K. Bigdeli ◽  
Ulrich Kneser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Necrotizing Fasciitis ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Central Venous Catheter Placement

Central Venous Catheter Site

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. e34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Lorente ◽  
Alejandro Jiménez
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Catheter Site

scholarly journals Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index derived from jugular and femoral indicator injection: a prospective observational study in patients equipped with both a PiCCO-2 and an EV-1000-device

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Herner ◽  
Markus Heilmaier ◽  
Ulrich Mayr ◽  
Roland M. Schmid ◽  
Wolfgang Huber
Keyword(s):  
Central Venous Catheter ◽  
Transpulmonary Thermodilution ◽  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Arterial Line ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Volume Responsiveness ◽  
End Diastolic Volume ◽  
Catheter Site ◽  
The Impact

AbstractTranspulmonary thermodilution (TPTD)-derived global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI) is a static marker of preload which better predicted volume responsiveness compared to filling pressures in several studies. GEDVI can be generated with at least two devices: PiCCO and EV-1000. Several studies showed that uncorrected indicator injection into a femoral central venous catheter (CVC) results in a significant overestimation of GEDVI by the PiCCO-device. Therefore, the most recent PiCCO-algorithm corrects for femoral indicator injection. However, there are no systematic data on the impact of femoral indicator injection for the EV-1000 device. Furthermore, the correction algorithm of the PiCCO is poorly validated. Therefore, we prospectively analyzed 14 datasets from 10 patients with TPTD-monitoring undergoing central venous catheter (CVC)- and arterial line exchange. PiCCO was replaced by EV-1000, femoral CVCs were replaced by jugular/subclavian CVCs and vice-versa. For PiCCO, jugular and femoral indicator injection derived GEDVI was comparable when the correct information about femoral catheter site was given (p = 0.251). By contrast, GEDVI derived from femoral indicator injection using the EV-1000 was obviously not corrected and was substantially higher than jugular GEDVI measured by the EV-1000 (846 ± 250 vs. 712 ± 227 ml/m2; p = 0.001). Furthermore, measurements of GEDVI were not comparable between PiCCO and EV-1000 even in case of jugular indicator injection (p = 0.003). This is most probably due to different indexations of the raw value GEDV. EV-1000 could not be recommended to measure GEDVI in case of a femoral CVC. Furthermore, different indexations used by EV-1000 and PiCCO should be considered even in case of a jugular CVC when comparing GEDVI derived from PiCCO and EV-1000.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document