Key result
Electrocardiogram combined with ultrasound guidance significantly improved the accuracy of peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning to 99.40% compared to 92.10% with traditional methods.
Why the study?
To explore the safety and accuracy of intracavitary electrocardiography and ultrasound for peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning in breast cancer patients.
Does intracavitary electrocardiography combined with ultrasound improve PICC tip positioning accuracy and reduce complications in breast cancer patients?
RCT (n=176)
Open-label
Random number table
No
Does intracavitary electrocardiography combined with ultrasound improve PICC tip positioning accuracy and reduce complications in breast cancer patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 99.4% vs 92.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
ECG combined with ultrasound guidance for PICC insertion in breast cancer patients improves tip positioning accuracy and reduces anxiety, pain, and thrombosis compared to traditional techniques.
Supports ECG-ultrasound guidance for PICC in breast cancer; confirms randomized benefit on tip accuracy.
This study aims to explore the safety and accuracy of the intracavitary electrocardiography and ultrasound in the peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning of breast cancer patients. A total of 176 breast cancer patients who were treated in the breast surgery department of our hospital from January 2018 to January 2019 were selected. They were randomly divided into the Electrocardiogram-UI group (n=88) and the control group (n=88). In the Electrocardiogram-UI group, the peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning was under the guidance of the bedside Electrocardiogram combined with ultrasound, while the peripherally inserted central venous catheter insertion in the control group was performed by the traditional technology. The accuracy of peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning, psychological state, anxiety, pain degree, and complications were compared between the two groups after surgery. The results showed that the positioning accuracy rate of the catheter tip in the Electrocardiogram-UI group was 99.40 %, while that in the control group was 92.10 %. In the control group, the accuracy rate of the catheter tip positioning in the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs was 20.30 %, 64.10 %, and 14.70 % respectively, while that in the Electrocardiogram-UI group was 32.20 %, 40.30 % and 19.60 % respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups. And 24 h before the catheter insertion, there was no significant difference in the anxiety scores between the two groups. However, 24 h after the catheter insertion, the anxiety and pain scores in the Electrocardiogram-UI group were significantly lower than that of the control group. In terms of the complications, in the first w, two patients in the Electrocardiogram-UI group had thrombosis, while four patients in the control group. No patients had the symptoms of the chest discomfort, arrhythmia, or infection in both groups. At the end of three and six mo, the incidence of thrombosis in the Electrocardiogram-UI group was significantly lower than that of the control group. The peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning technology guided by Electrocardiogram combined with ultrasound is an ideal method for peripherally inserted central venous catheter insertion. It can improve the quality of life of the breast cancer patients and promote the prognosis of the breast cancer patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
XU et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Breast cancer requiring peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) (n=176). Electrocardiogram combined with ultrasound (ECG-UI) vs. Traditional technology (ultrasound-guided puncture with chest X-ray confirmation) was evaluated on Accuracy of PICC tip positioning (p=<0.001). Electrocardiogram combined with ultrasound guidance significantly improved the accuracy of peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip positioning to 99.40% compared to 92.10% with traditional methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: