In vitro evaluation of relative perforating potential of central venous catheters: Comparison of materials, selected models, number of lumens, and angles of incidence to simulated membrane

Journal of Clinical Monitoring volume 7, pages1–6(1991)Cite this article

Abstract

Perforation of the vena cava or atrium is a serious complication of monitoring with a central venous catheter. We designed an in vitro model with a pulsating simulated membrane to evaluate a number of variables that could affect relative perforating potential of different types of central venous catheters. To determine the perforating potential of central venous catheters, we studied the effects of (1) the angle of incidence (n=6) between catheter and simulated membrane; (2) catheter material (polyurethane and polyethylene); (3) make (manufacturer and model) (n=6), with 3 catheters of each make tested; (4) design (n=3 each: silicone rubber, open-ended, blunt-ended, and polyurethane pigtail); and (5) number of lumens (single, double, or triple). Each trial was repeated five times with each catheter that was tested. Perforation was significantly more likely when the angle of incidence between catheter and pulsating simulated membrane was greater than 40° than when it was 40° (P<0.05). Perforation was less likely with single-lumen than comparable Frenchsized double- and triple-lumen catheters; among single-lumen catheters, perforation required many more pulsations with a polyurethane than a polyethylene catheter (P<0.001). Perforation potential differed significantly among 6 makes of 7-French triple-lumen catheters (P<0.05). Compared with other materials or designs, silicone rubber or a pigtail tip decreased the perforation potential of catheters (P<0.001). These data offer additional objective information to consider when choosing and positioning central venous catheters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Defalque RJ, Campbell C. Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheters. Anesthesiology 1979;50:249–252

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Brandt RL, Foley WJ, Fink GH, et al. Mechanism of perforation of the heart with production of hydropericardium by a venous catheter and its prevention. Am J Surg 1970;119:311–316

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Collier PE, Ryan JJ, Diamond DL. Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheters. Report of a case and review of the English literature. J Vasc Dis 1984;35:595–600

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Aldridge HE, Jay AWL. Central venous catheters and heart perforation. Can Med Assoc J 1986;135:1082–1084

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Iberti TJ, Katz LB, Reiner MA, et al. Hydrothorax as a late complication of central venous indwelling catheters. Surgery 1983;94:842–846

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sheep RE, Guiney WB. Fatal cardiac tamponade. Occurrence with other complications after left internal jugular vein catheterization. JAMA 1982;248:1632–1635

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Opitz JC, Toyama W. Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheterization. Two cases in premature infants with survival. Pediatrics 1982;70:139–140

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Maschke SP, Rogove HJ. Cardiac tamponade associated with a multilumen central venous catheter. Crit Care Med 1984;12:611–613

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Krog M, Berggren L, Brodin M, et al. Pericardial tamponade caused by central venous catheters. World J Surg 1982;6:138–143

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fischer GW, Scherz RG. Neck vein catheters and pericardial tamponade. Pediatrics 1973;52:868–871

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Edwards H, King TC. Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheters. Arch Surg 1982;117:965–967

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kapadia CB, Heard SO, Yeston NS. Delayed recognition of vascular complications caused by central venous catheters. J Clin Monit 1988;4:267–271

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ducatman BS, McMichan JC, Edwards W. Catheter-induced lesions of the right side of the heart. JAMA 1985;253:791–795

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Barton BR, Hermann G, Weil R. Cardiothoracic emergencies associated with subclavian hemodialysis catheters. JAMA 1983;250:2660–2662

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kalso E, Rosenberg PH, Vuorialho M, et al. How much do arm movements displace cubital central venous catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1982;26:354–356

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Lee DS, Kuhn J, Shaffer MJ, et al. Migration of tips of central venous catheters in seated patients. Anesth Analg 1984;63:949–952

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Langston CS. The aberrant central venous catheter and its complications. Radiology 1971;100:55–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Stenqvist O, Curelaru I, Linder L-E, et al. Stiffness of central venous catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1983;27:153–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Curelaru I, Gustavsson B, Hansson AH, et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization II. A comparison between plain silicone elastomer, and plain polyethylene, long, antebrachial catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1983;27:158–164

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Curelaru I, Gustavsson B, Hultman E, et al. Material thrombogenicity in central venous catheterization III. A comparison between soft polyvinylchloride and soft polyurethane elastomer, long, antebrachial catheters. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1984;28:204–208

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tocino I, Watanabe A. Impending catheter perforation of superior vena cava: radiographic recognition. AJR 1986;146:487–490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Dijk B, Bakker PM. Appraisal of the dislocation of central venous catheter tips using subclavian and arm veins. Anaesthesist 1977;26:138–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. From the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL

    Dr Nikolaus Gravenstein MD & Robert H. Blackshear MD

  2. From the Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL

    Dr Nikolaus Gravenstein MD

Authors
  1. Dr Nikolaus Gravenstein MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert H. Blackshear MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dr Nikolaus Gravenstein MD.

Additional information

Presented in part at the Eighth Medical Monitoring Technology Conference, Vail, CO, March 1988; the Ninth World Congress of Anaesthesiologists, Washington, DC, May 1988; and the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, San Francisco, CA, October 1988.

We thank Cook Critical Care (Division of Cook, Inc) for supporting this project from its inception and Christine R. Finnegan and Lynn Dirk for editorial help in preparation of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gravenstein, N., Blackshear, R.H. In vitro evaluation of relative perforating potential of central venous catheters: Comparison of materials, selected models, number of lumens, and angles of incidence to simulated membrane. J Clin Monitor Comput 7, 1–6 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01617891

Download citation

Key words

  • Complications: accidents
  • Equipment: catheters, central venous
  • Monitoring: blood pressure central venous; heart