Evaluation of upper limb superficial venous percussion as a sign of anatomical location and venous permeability. A comparative study of superficial venous percussion to ultrasound findings on non-renal patients and on chronic kidney disease patients


Autoři: Pedro Coelho N. Diógenes aff001;  Aline Naiara Azevedo da Silva aff001;  Fausto Pierdoná Guzen aff001;  Marco Aurelio de Moura Freire aff001;  José Rodolfo Lopes de Paiva Cavalcanti aff001
Působiště autorů: Anatomy Laboratory, Medical School, Department of Biomedical Sciences, State University of Rio Grande do Norte, Mossoró, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil aff001;  Nova Esperança College, Mossoró, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224825

Souhrn

The objective of this study was to evaluate venous percussion in the upper limbs as a possible low-cost clinical sign that may contribute to physical examination of the superficial venous system and be useful in the evaluation for punctures and also for the construction of fistulas.

Methods

An analytical cross-sectional study with 70 individuals divided into two groups. Group A consisted of 35 volunteers who were being preoperatively prepared for the construction of arteriovenous fistula. Group B consisted of 35 non-renal patients selected by convenience. Each participant underwent physical examination, including venous percussion, of the dominant upper limb and then ultrasound. Interobserver agreement was assessed between a trained vascular surgeon performing percussion and fourth-year medical student. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of percussion were determined in relation to ultrasound. The agreement between the methods, venous percussion and venous duplex ultrasound was also evaluated by the Kappa index.

Results

The overall interobserver agreement for the percussion was 0.74 (95% CI 0.632 to 0.851). It was observed that the results were more favorable in the cephalic vein than in the basilic vein, emphasizing that the cephalic is more used in venous punctures, because of its anatomical location and visibility, and in fistula construction. The 35 percussions of the cephalic forearm vein in Group A resulted in a sensitivity of 1.0 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.00), specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.00), a positive predictive value of 0.89(95% CI 0.52 to 1.00) and a negative predictive value of 1.00 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00), with an accuracy of 0.97 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and Kappa index of 0.92 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.00) in relation to ultrasound. Overall, when all venous segments were analyzed in group A, the Kappa index of agreement between the percussion and the ultrasonography reached 0.56 (95% CI 0.401 to 0.72). All venous segments in Group A had a sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.99). When all venous segments were analyzed in group B, the Kappa index of agreement between the percussion and the ultrasonography reached 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.62). All venous segments in Group B had a sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.79) and a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.91).

Conclusion

Venous percussion of the upper limbs has a high positive predictive value and high specificity, when compared to ultrasound as a way to evaluate the patency and adequacy of the cephalic vein. Although there is not enough evidence to preclude ultrasound, percussion should definitely be included in the traditional physical exam evaluation of upper limbs superficial veins.

Klíčová slova:

Body limbs – Body Mass Index – Fistulas – Ultrasound imaging – Veins


Zdroje

1. Lapostolle F, Catineau J, Garrigue B, Monmarteau V, Houssaye T, Vecci I, et al. Prospective evaluation of peripheral venous access difficulty in emergency care. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33: 1452–1457. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0634-y 17554524

2. Sebbane M, Claret PG, Lefebvre S, Mercier G, Rubenovitch J, Jreige R, et al. Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the Emergency Department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med. 2013;44: 299–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.07.051 22981661

3. Loon FHJ van, Puijn LAPM, Houterman S, Bouwman ARA. Development of the A-DIVA Scale. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95: e3428. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003428 27100437

4. Mikuni Y, Chiba S, Tonosaki Y. Topographical anatomy of superficial veins, cutaneous nerves, and arteries at venipuncture sites in the cubital fossa. Anat Sci Int. 2013;88: 46–57. doi: 10.1007/s12565-012-0160-z 23131916

5. Walsh G. Difficult Peripheral Venous Access: Recognizing and Managing the Patient at Risk. J Assoc Vasc Access. Elsevier; 2008;13: 198–203. doi: 10.2309/java.13-4-7

6. Gorski L, Hadaway L, Hagle ME, McGoldrick M, Orr M, Doellman D. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39: S1–S159.

7. Société Française D’hygiène Hospitalière HA de la S. Prévention des infections liées aux cathéters veineux périphériques. 2005; 1–51.

8. Vascular Access Work Group NKF. 2006 Updates Clinical Practice Guidelines. Blood Press. 2006;33: 487–8. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.04.040

9. Tordoir JHM, Loon MM Van, Meer M, Laanen J Van, Bode AS, Weijmer MC, et al. Hemodialysis Vascular access Management in the Netherlands. 2015;16: 11–15. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000366

10. Sequeira A, Naljayan M, Vachharajani TJ. Vascular Access Guidelines: Summary, Rationale, and Controversies. Elsevier; 2016; 2–8. doi: 10.1053/j.tvir.2016.11.001

11. Ibeas J, Roca-tey R, Vallespín J, Moreno T, Moñux G, Martí-monrós A, et al. Spanish Clinical Guidelines on Vascular Access for Haemodialysis. 2017;37: 1–191.

12. Solid CA, Collins AJ, Ebben JP, Chen S-C, Faravardeh A, Foley RN, et al. Agreement of reported vascular access on the medical evidence report and on medicare claims at hemodialysis initiation. BMC Nephrol. BMC Nephrology; 2014;15: 30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-30 24507475

13. Kordzadeh A, Chung J, Panayiotopoulos YP. Cephalic vein and radial artery diameter in formation of radiocephalic arteriovenous fistula: A systematic review. J Vasc Access. 2015;16: 506–511. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000413 26109534

14. Stolz LA, Stolz U, Howe C, Farrell IJ, Adhikari S. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access. 2015;16: 321–326. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000346 25656255

15. Gregg SC, Murthi SB, Sisley AC, Stein DM, Scalea TM. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care. Elsevier Inc.; 2010;25: 514–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.09.003 19836193

16. Kerforne T, Petitpas F, Frasca D, Goudet V, Robert R, Mimoz O. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access in severely ill patients with suspected difficult vascular puncture. Chest. The American College of Chest Physicians; 2012;141: 279–280. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2054 22215844

17. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. Bmj. 2003;327: 361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361 12919984

18. Sigaut S, Skhiri A, Stany I, Golmar J, Nivoche Y, Constant I, et al. Ultrasound guided internal jugular vein access in children and infant: A meta-analysis of published studies. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19: 1199–1206. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03171.x 19863734

19. Pedrycz A, Budzyńska B. Diagnosis of varicose veins of the lower limbs–functional tests. Arch Physiother Glob Res. 2016;20: 29–32.

20. Silva MBJ, Hobson RW, Pappas PJ, Jamil Z, Araki CT, Goldberg MC, et al. A strategy for increasing use of autogenous hemodialysis access procedures: Impact of preoperative noninvasive evaluation. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27: 302–308. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(98)70360-x 9510284

21. Robbin ML, Gallichio MH, Deierhoi MH, Young CJ, Weber TM, Allon M. US Vascular Mapping before Hemodialysis Access Placement. Radiology. 2000;217: 83–88. doi: 10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc2883 11012427

22. Nursal TZ, Oguzkurt L, Tercan F, Torer N, Noyan T, Karakayali H, et al. Is routine preoperative ultrasonographic mapping for arteriovenous fistula creation necessary in patients with favorable physical examination findings? Results of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2006;30: 1100–1107. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-0586-8 16736343

23. Anthony VJ, Joanne GM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37: 360–363. 15883903

24. Simel DL, Rennie D. Rational The Rational Clinical Examination. 2009.

25. Badgett RG, Tanaka DJ, Hunt DK, Jelley MJ, Feinberg LE, Steiner JF, et al. Can moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be diagnosed by historical and physical findings alone? Am J Med. 1993;94: 188–96. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(93)90182-o 8430714

26. Quail JF, McDonald VS, Carter KK, Weiss JS, Casey K. The Pulseless Limb in War Trauma: Does It Predict an Arterial Injury? J Vasc Surg. Elsevier Inc.; 2014;60: 543–544. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.05.073

27. Cournot M, Boccalon H, Cambou JP, Guilloux J, Taraszkiewicz D, Hanaire-Broutin H, et al. Accuracy of the screening physical examination to identify subclinical atherosclerosis and peripheral arterial disease in asymptomatic subjects. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46: 1215–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.08.022 18154997

28. Butman SM, Ewy GA, Standen JR, Kern KB, Hahn E. Bedside cardiovascular examination in patients with severe chronic heart failure: Importance of rest or inducible jugular venous distension. J Am Coll Cardiol. Elsevier Masson SAS; 1993;22: 968–974. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90405-p 8409071

29. WHO WHO. Technical bases for the WHO recommendations on the management of pneumonia in children at first-level health facilities [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 1991. pp. 1–24. Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/61199/1/WHO_ARI_91.20.pdf

30. Rudan I, Boschi-pinto C, Biloglav Z, Campbell H. Epidemiology and etiology of childhood pneumonia. 2008;048769. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.048769

31. Leventhal JM. Clinical predictors of pneumonia as a guide to ordering chest roentgenograms. Clin Pediatr. 1982;21: 730–734. doi: 10.1177/000992288202101205 7140124

32. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Salazar C, Prevost Y, Huicho L, Erwin P. Precisión de la taquipnea y las retracciones subcostales como signos clínicos para diagnóstico de neumonia adquirida en la comunidad en niños: revisión sistemática y metaanalisis. 2012;29: 337–344.

33. De la Torre-Montero J-C, Montealegre-Sanz M, Faraldo-Cabana A, Oliva-Pellicer B, Garcia-Real I, Fenwick M, et al. Venous International Assessment, VIA scale, validated classification procedure for the peripheral venous system. J Vasc Access. Italy; 2014;15: 45–50. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000173 24043322

34. Hoo ZH, Candlish J, Teare D. What is an ROC curve? 2017; 357–359. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-206735

35. Park SH. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve: Practical Review. 2004;5.

36. Soni NJ, Reyes LF, Keyt H, Arango A, Gelfond JA, Peters JI, et al. Use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization: a national survey of intensivists and hospitalists. J Crit Care. Elsevier B.V.; 2016;36: 277–283. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.014 27491563

37. Saugel B, Scheeren TWL, Teboul JL. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: A structured review and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care. Critical Care; 2017;21: 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1589-6

38. Gosselin É, Lapré J, Lavoie S, Rhein S. Cost-effectiveness of introducing a nursing-based programme of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access in a regional teaching hospital. J Nurs Manag. 2017;25: 339–345. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12470 28439999

39. Huber TS. Hemodialysis Access: General Considerations. In: Cronenwett JL, Johnston KW, editors. Rutherford’s Vascular Surgery. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 1082–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-1849.1999.tb00019.x

40. CIMINO JE, BRESCIA MJ. Simple venipuncture for hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. United States; 1962;267: 608–609. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196209202671207 13879551

41. Lew SQ, Nguyen BN, Ing TS. Hemodialysis vascular access construction in the upper extremity: A review. J Vasc Access. 2015;16: 87–92. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000299 25198804


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11