To determine the equivalency of pressure measurements from peripherally inserted central catheters(PICCs) versus centrally inserted central venous catheters(CVCs) in vitro as well as in vivo. The in vitro study was performed in a clinical laboratory. Static pressure measurements from PICCs and CVCs were obtained in vitro over a physiologic range of 5–25 mmHg. Triple and dual lumen PICCs were directly compared to CVC controls.Dynamic pressure waveforms were recorded to simulate physiologic intravascular pressure variation. The in vivo study was executed in the medical intensive care unit(MICU) of a tertiary-level academic medical center. Data was collected from ten adult patients with both a PICC and a CVC in place for on-going clinical care. Measurements of central venous pressure (CVP) were recorded simultaneously from PICCs and CVCs. Duplicate measurements were taken after a stable waveform was recorded. For the in vitro study, a total of 540 pressure measurements were recorded. The average bias determined by Bland–Altman plot was 0 mmHg for the 5Fr PICC and 0.071 mmHg for the 6Fr PICC. The correlation coefficient for both catheters was 1.0 (P<0.001). Dynamic pressure waveforms revealed equivalent amplitude. During the in vivo trial, 70CVP measurements were collected. The paired CVP measurements were found to be highly reliable across subjects (r = 0.99, P<0.0001). No significance in the average difference in CVP measurement (PICC–CVC) was determined by the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (S = 1,P = 0.93). In conclusion, PICCs are equivalent to CVCs when measuring static and dynamic pressure in vitro and CVP in ICU patients.

Background Colorectal cancer often presents with obstruction needing urgent, potentially life-saving decompression. The comparative efficacy and safety of endoluminal stenting versus emergency surgery as initial treatment for such patients is uncertain. Methods Patients with left-sided colonic obstruction and radiological features of carcinoma were randomized to endoluminal stenting using a combined endoscopic/fluoroscopic technique followed by elective surgery 1–4 weeks later, or surgical decompression with or without tumour resection. Treatment allocation was via a central randomization service using a minimization procedure stratified by curative intent, primary tumour site, and severity score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation). Co-primary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were stoma formation, stenting completion and complication rates, perioperative morbidity, 6-month survival, 3-year recurrence, resource use, adherence to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Analyses were undertaken by intention to treat. Results Between 23 April 2009 and 22 December 2014, 245 patients from 39 hospitals were randomized. Stenting was attempted in 119 of 123 allocated patients (96.7 per cent), achieving relief of obstruction in 98 of 119 (82.4 per cent). For the 89 per cent treated with curative intent, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative mortality (3.6 per cent (4 of 110) versus 5.6 per cent (6 of 107); P = 0.48), or duration of hospital stay (median 19 (i.q.r. 11–34) versus 18 (10–28) days; P = 0.94) between stenting followed by delayed elective surgery and emergency surgery. Among patients undergoing potentially curative treatment, stoma formation occurred less frequently in those allocated to stenting than those allocated to immediate surgery (47 of 99 (47.5 per cent) versus 72 of 106 (67.9 per cent); P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in perioperative morbidity, critical care use, quality of life, 3-year recurrence or mortality between treatment groups. Conclusion Stenting as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation without detrimental effects. Registration number: ISRCTN13846816 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract