TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety and Outcomes of Peripherally Administered Vasopressor Infusion in Patients Admitted with Shock to an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit—A Single-Center Prospective Study
AU - on behalf of Jerusalem Platelets Thrombosis and Intervention in Cardiology (JUPITER-16) Study Group
AU - Asher, Elad
AU - Karameh, Hani
AU - Nassar, Hamed
AU - Yosefy, Chaim
AU - Marmor, David
AU - Perel, Nimrod
AU - Taha, Louay
AU - Tabi, Meir
AU - Braver, Omri
AU - Shuvy, Mony
AU - Wiener-Well, Yonit
AU - Glikson, Michael
AU - Bruoha, Sharon
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 by the authors.
PY - 2023/9/1
Y1 - 2023/9/1
N2 - Background: Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU). Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period. Results: A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.
AB - Background: Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU). Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period. Results: A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.
KW - cardiogenic shock
KW - central venous catheter
KW - peripheral venous catheter
KW - vasopressors
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85170540534&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/jcm12175734
DO - 10.3390/jcm12175734
M3 - Article
C2 - 37685801
AN - SCOPUS:85170540534
SN - 2077-0383
VL - 12
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
JF - Journal of Clinical Medicine
IS - 17
M1 - 5734
ER -