Midline Catheters as an Alternative for Central Venous Catheters in Venous Oxygen Saturation Monitoring: A Single Center Experience

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

7-23-2024

Journal

Journal of intensive care medicine

DOI

10.1177/08850666241265190

Keywords

cardiac output; central line; central oxygen; hemodynamic monitoring; procedure; quality

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) obtained from a central venous catheter (CVC) is often used to approximate oxygen delivery in critically ill patients. Despite their importance in administering medications and monitoring oxygen delivery, the use of CVCs can be associated with significant complications. Midline catheters are inserted via a peripheral vein above the antecubital fossa and provide a safe alternative to CVCs. This study aimed to determine the equivalence of ScvO2 and midline catheter oxygen saturation (SmO2) in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a single-center observational study of critically ill adult patients who had concurrently placed CVCs (internal jugular and subclavian) and midline catheters as part of standard ICU care. Venous oxygen saturation and lactate levels were measured from both catheters using the Abbott point-of-care i-STAT analyzer. Demographic and ICU admission data were collected. Continuous variables were compared using the paired t-test. Pearson's correlation was used to evaluate the linear correlation between ScvO2 and SmO2. The systematic error (bias) was calculated using Bland-Altman analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to evaluate the sensitivities and specificities for different values of SmO2 to predict ScvO2. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (n = 48) were enrolled in the study. The mean ScvO2 and SmO2 were 65.5% +/- 11.2% and 62.7% +/- 17.6% respectively (p = 0.1197). In the Bland-Altman analysis, the mean bias between ScvO2 and SmO2 was 2.8% +/- 12.3% with 95% limits of agreement of -21.3% to 26.9%. More than 60% of the ScvO2 and SmO2 values diverged by ≥ 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between the mean SmO2 and ScvO2 was not statistically significant and the mean bias between SmO2 and ScvO2 is low. Despite this, the substantially large standard deviation and limits of agreement preclude the use of SmO2 as a direct surrogate of ScvO2.

Department

Emergency Medicine

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS