Transesophageal echocardiography for verification of the position of the electrocardiographically-placed central venous catheter

OBJECTIVE: Compare changes in P-wave amplitude of the intra-atrial electrocardiogram (ECG) and its corresponding transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-controlled position to verify the exact localization of a central venous catheter (CVC) tip. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: University, single-institutional setting. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: CVC placement via the right internal jugular vein with ECG control using the guidewire technique and TEE control in 4 different phases: phase 1: CVC placement with normalized P wave and measurement of distance from the crista terminalis to the CVC tip; phase 2: TEE-controlled placement of the CVC tip; parallel to the superior vena cava (SVC) and measurements of P-wave amplitude; phase 3: influence of head positioning on CVC migration; and phase 4: evaluation of positioning of the CVC postoperatively using a chest x-ray. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The CVC tip could only be visualized in 67 patients on TEE with a normalized P wave. In 198 patients with the CVC parallel to the SVC wall controlled by TEE (phase 2), an elevated P wave was observed. Different head movements led to no significant migration of the CVC (phase 3). On a postoperative chest-x-ray, the CVC position was correct in 87.6% (phase 4). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the position of the CVC tip is located parallel to the SVC and 1.5 cm above the crista terminalis if the P wave starts to decrease during withdrawal of the catheter. The authors recommend that ECG control as per their study should be routinely used for placement of central venous catheters via the right internal jugular vein

from unconsciousness

Auditory processing during deep propofol sedation and recover

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by metoclopramide combined with dexamethasone: randomised double blind multicentre trial

Objectives To determine whether 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg metoclopramide combined with 8 mg dexamethasone, given intraoperatively, is more effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting than 8 mg dexamethasone alone, and to assess benefit in relation to adverse drug reactions. Design Four-armed, parallel group, double blind, randomised controlled clinical trial. Setting Four clinics of a university hospital and four district hospitals in Germany. Participants 3140 patients who received balanced or regional anaesthesia during surgery. Main outcome measures Postoperative nausea and vomiting within 24 hours of surgery (primary end point); occurrence of adverse reactions. Results Cumulative incidences (95% confidence intervals) of postoperative nausea and vomiting were 23.1% (20.2% to 26.0%), 20.6% (17.8% to 23.4%), 17.2% (14.6% to 19.8%), and 14.5% (12.0% to 17.0%) for 0 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg metoclopramide. In the secondary analysis, 25 mg and 50 mg metoclopramide were equally effective at preventing early nausea (0-12 hours), but only 50 mg reduced late nausea and vomiting (> 12 hours). The most frequent adverse drug reactions were hypotension and tachycardia, with cumulative incidences of 8.8% (6.8% to 10.8%), 11.2% (9.0% to 13.4%), 12.9% (10.5% to 15.3%), and 17.9% (15.2% to 20.6%) for 0 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg metoclopramide. Conclusion The addition of 50 mg metoclopramide to 8 mg dexamethasone (given intraoperatively) is an effective, safe, and cheap way to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. A reduced dose of 25 mg metoclopramide intraoperatively, with additional postoperative prophylaxis in high risk patients, may be equally effective and cause fewer adverse drug reactions. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31625370

[Study protocol of the VISEP study. Response of the SepNet study group]

In the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse