Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2022
Peripheral Vasoactive Administration in Critically Ill Children With Shock: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Levy Robert A, Reiter Pamela D, Spear Matthew, Santana Alison, Silveira Lori, Cox Shaina, Mourani Peter M, Maddux Aline B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Management of fluid refractory pediatric shock requires prompt administration of vasoactive agents. Although delivery of vasoactive therapy is generally provided via a central venous catheter, their placement can delay drug administration and is associated with complications. We characterize peripheral vasoactive administration in a cohort of critically ill children with shock, evaluate progression to central venous catheter placement, and describe complications associated with extravasation.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Single-center, quaternary PICU (January 2010 to December 2015).
PATIENTS: Children (31 d to 18 yr) who received epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared patients based on the initial site of vasoactive infusion: peripheral venous access (PVA) or central venous access (CVA) and, within the PVA group, compared patients based on subsequent placement of a central catheter for vasoactive infusion. We also characterized peripheral extravasations. We evaluated 756 patients: 231 (30.6%) PVA and 525 (69.4%) CVA patients. PVA patients were older, had lower illness severity, and more frequently had vasoactive therapy initiated at night compared with CVA patients. In PVA patients, 124 (53.7%) had a central catheter placed after a median of 140 minutes (interquartile range, 65-247 min) of peripheral treatment. Patients who avoided central catheter placement had lower illness severity. Of the 93 patients with septic shock, 44 (47.3%) did not have a central catheter placed. Extravasations occurred in four of 231 (1.7% [95% CI, 0.03-3.4]) PVA patients, exclusively in the hand. Three patients received pharmacologic intervention, and none had long-term disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, peripheral venous catheters can be used for vasoactive administration. In our series, the upper limit of the 95% CI for extravasation is approximately 1-in-30, meaning that this route may be an appropriate option while evaluating the need for central access, particularly in patients with low illness severity.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Single-center, quaternary PICU (January 2010 to December 2015).
PATIENTS: Children (31 d to 18 yr) who received epinephrine, norepinephrine, or dopamine.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared patients based on the initial site of vasoactive infusion: peripheral venous access (PVA) or central venous access (CVA) and, within the PVA group, compared patients based on subsequent placement of a central catheter for vasoactive infusion. We also characterized peripheral extravasations. We evaluated 756 patients: 231 (30.6%) PVA and 525 (69.4%) CVA patients. PVA patients were older, had lower illness severity, and more frequently had vasoactive therapy initiated at night compared with CVA patients. In PVA patients, 124 (53.7%) had a central catheter placed after a median of 140 minutes (interquartile range, 65-247 min) of peripheral treatment. Patients who avoided central catheter placement had lower illness severity. Of the 93 patients with septic shock, 44 (47.3%) did not have a central catheter placed. Extravasations occurred in four of 231 (1.7% [95% CI, 0.03-3.4]) PVA patients, exclusively in the hand. Three patients received pharmacologic intervention, and none had long-term disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, peripheral venous catheters can be used for vasoactive administration. In our series, the upper limit of the 95% CI for extravasation is approximately 1-in-30, meaning that this route may be an appropriate option while evaluating the need for central access, particularly in patients with low illness severity.