Objective To explore the consistency of central venous pressure (CVP) values through peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and central venous catheterization (CVC). Methods The CVP was measured through PICC and CVC respectively in 62 patients selected from hematology department. The clinical consistency of CVP values measured through two different ways was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis. Results Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the CVP values measured through PICC was higher than that measured through CVC, and the limit agreement of the CVP values through two different ways was (2.024, -1.214) cmH 2O. Meanwhile, 3% (2/62) of the points were beyond the 95% limited range of agreement, and within the 95% limits of agreement, the maximum absolute value of the difference of the CVP values through two different ways was 1.80 cmH 2O, while the minimum was-1.0 cmH2O. Conclusion CVP values through PICC and CVC remain consistent, and PICC is an effective method for CVP monitoring.% 目的探讨经外周静脉置入中心静脉导管(peripherally inserted central catheter,PICC)与经中心静脉插管(central venous catheterization,CVC)测量中心静脉压值的一致性.方法收集广州市某三级甲等医院血液科实施PICC及CVC的住院患者62例,分别经PICC与经CVC测量患者的中心静脉压.应用Bland-Altman分析评价2种途径测得中心静脉压数值的一致性.结果 Bland-Altman分析表明：经PICC测得的中心静脉压值高于经 CVC测得的中心静脉压值,2种途径测得中心静脉压值一致性界限为(2.024,-1.214)cmH2O(1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa)；3%(2/62)的点在95%的一致性界限以外,在一致性界限范围内,2种途径测量中心静脉压差值的最大值为1.80 cmH2O,最小值为-1.0 cmH2O.结论经PICC与经CVC测得的中心静脉压值一致性好,经 PICC测量是中心静脉压测量的有效方法.
展开▼
