Central venous pressure measurements: Peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters

Ian H. Black, Sandralee Blosser, W. Bosseau Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether central venous pressure measurements taken from a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) correlate with those from a centrally inserted central catheter (CICC). Design: A pilot bench study followed by a prospective, nonblinded, clinical comparison. Setting: A 16-bed medical coronary intensive care unit and a 30-bed surgical intensive care unit at a university hospital. Patients: Seven surgical intensive care unit patients and five medical coronary intensive care unit patients. Interventions: During the bench study, a simple manometer system was set up to test the catheters. During the clinical study, measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly. Positions of the catheter tips in the chest were verified by radiography. Paired central venous pressure measurements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary artery catheter CICCs, all with continuous pressure infusion devices. Measurements and Main Results: Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen, have a higher inherent resistance, which can be overcome with a continuous infusion device. During the clinical study, three to 12 paired, digital, central venous pressure measurements were recorded from each of 12 patients for a total of 77 data pairs. Measurements were recorded at end-expiration. Mean central venous pressure from the CICCs was 11 ± 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 ± 7 mm Hg. PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99) for all data pairs. Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central venous pressure by 1.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg (p = 0.02). Conclusions: PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and to follow trends in a clinical setting when used with a pressure infusion device to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC. Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinically insignificant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3833-3836
Number of pages4
JournalCritical care medicine
Volume28
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Central Venous Pressure
Catheters
Intensive Care Units
Pressure
Coronary Care Units
Critical Care
Equipment and Supplies
Innate Immunity
Radiography
Pulmonary Artery
Thorax

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

@article{5ddc6f95b85e4ed28c1cadc2b8c07219,
title = "Central venous pressure measurements: Peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters",
abstract = "Objective: To determine whether central venous pressure measurements taken from a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) correlate with those from a centrally inserted central catheter (CICC). Design: A pilot bench study followed by a prospective, nonblinded, clinical comparison. Setting: A 16-bed medical coronary intensive care unit and a 30-bed surgical intensive care unit at a university hospital. Patients: Seven surgical intensive care unit patients and five medical coronary intensive care unit patients. Interventions: During the bench study, a simple manometer system was set up to test the catheters. During the clinical study, measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly. Positions of the catheter tips in the chest were verified by radiography. Paired central venous pressure measurements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary artery catheter CICCs, all with continuous pressure infusion devices. Measurements and Main Results: Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen, have a higher inherent resistance, which can be overcome with a continuous infusion device. During the clinical study, three to 12 paired, digital, central venous pressure measurements were recorded from each of 12 patients for a total of 77 data pairs. Measurements were recorded at end-expiration. Mean central venous pressure from the CICCs was 11 ± 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 ± 7 mm Hg. PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99) for all data pairs. Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central venous pressure by 1.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg (p = 0.02). Conclusions: PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and to follow trends in a clinical setting when used with a pressure infusion device to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC. Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinically insignificant.",
author = "Black, {Ian H.} and Sandralee Blosser and Murray, {W. Bosseau}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00003246-200012000-00014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "3833--3836",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "12",

}

Central venous pressure measurements : Peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters. / Black, Ian H.; Blosser, Sandralee; Murray, W. Bosseau.

In: Critical care medicine, Vol. 28, No. 12, 01.01.2000, p. 3833-3836.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Central venous pressure measurements

T2 - Peripherally inserted catheters versus centrally inserted catheters

AU - Black, Ian H.

AU - Blosser, Sandralee

AU - Murray, W. Bosseau

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Objective: To determine whether central venous pressure measurements taken from a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) correlate with those from a centrally inserted central catheter (CICC). Design: A pilot bench study followed by a prospective, nonblinded, clinical comparison. Setting: A 16-bed medical coronary intensive care unit and a 30-bed surgical intensive care unit at a university hospital. Patients: Seven surgical intensive care unit patients and five medical coronary intensive care unit patients. Interventions: During the bench study, a simple manometer system was set up to test the catheters. During the clinical study, measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly. Positions of the catheter tips in the chest were verified by radiography. Paired central venous pressure measurements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary artery catheter CICCs, all with continuous pressure infusion devices. Measurements and Main Results: Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen, have a higher inherent resistance, which can be overcome with a continuous infusion device. During the clinical study, three to 12 paired, digital, central venous pressure measurements were recorded from each of 12 patients for a total of 77 data pairs. Measurements were recorded at end-expiration. Mean central venous pressure from the CICCs was 11 ± 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 ± 7 mm Hg. PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99) for all data pairs. Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central venous pressure by 1.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg (p = 0.02). Conclusions: PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and to follow trends in a clinical setting when used with a pressure infusion device to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC. Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinically insignificant.

AB - Objective: To determine whether central venous pressure measurements taken from a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) correlate with those from a centrally inserted central catheter (CICC). Design: A pilot bench study followed by a prospective, nonblinded, clinical comparison. Setting: A 16-bed medical coronary intensive care unit and a 30-bed surgical intensive care unit at a university hospital. Patients: Seven surgical intensive care unit patients and five medical coronary intensive care unit patients. Interventions: During the bench study, a simple manometer system was set up to test the catheters. During the clinical study, measurements of central venous pressure were recorded from patients who had an indwelling CICC and PICC concomitantly. Positions of the catheter tips in the chest were verified by radiography. Paired central venous pressure measurements were taken from 19-gauge dual-lumen PICCs and from 7-Fr, 16-gauge, 18-gauge, and pulmonary artery catheter CICCs, all with continuous pressure infusion devices. Measurements and Main Results: Bench work showed that PICCs, because of their longer length and narrower lumen, have a higher inherent resistance, which can be overcome with a continuous infusion device. During the clinical study, three to 12 paired, digital, central venous pressure measurements were recorded from each of 12 patients for a total of 77 data pairs. Measurements were recorded at end-expiration. Mean central venous pressure from the CICCs was 11 ± 7 mm Hg, and from the PICCs was 12 ± 7 mm Hg. PICC pressure versus CICC pressure correlated (r = 0.99) for all data pairs. Analysis by repeated measures showed PICC central venous pressure more than CICC central venous pressure by 1.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg (p = 0.02). Conclusions: PICCs can be used to measure central venous pressure and to follow trends in a clinical setting when used with a pressure infusion device to overcome the natural resistance of the PICC. Central venous pressure recorded via PICCs is slightly higher, but the difference is clinically insignificant.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034522822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034522822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00003246-200012000-00014

DO - 10.1097/00003246-200012000-00014

M3 - Article

C2 - 11153622

AN - SCOPUS:0034522822

VL - 28

SP - 3833

EP - 3836

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 12

ER -