Effects of trendelenburg position and positive intrathoracic pressure on internal jugular vein cross-sectional area in anesthetized children
Study Objective: To compare the cross-sectional area (in cm 2 ) of the left internal jugular vein (LIJV) and right internal jugular vein (RIJV) in anesthetized children, and measure the response to the Trendelenburg tilt position (TBRG) and a positive inspiratory pressure hold. Design: Prospective,...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of clinical anesthesia Vol. 13; no. 2; pp. 90 - 93 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
New York, NY
Elsevier Inc
01-03-2001
Elsevier Science |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Study Objective:
To compare the cross-sectional area (in cm
2
) of the left internal jugular vein (LIJV) and right internal jugular vein (RIJV) in anesthetized children, and measure the response to the Trendelenburg tilt position (TBRG) and a positive inspiratory pressure hold.
Design:
Prospective, nonrandomized study.
Setting:
University medical center.
Patients:
45 ASA physical status I and II children, ages 6 months to 8 years, undergoing general anesthesia and mechanical ventilation.
Interventions:
The cross-sectional area of both internal jugular veins was measured with a 5-MHz, two-dimensional surface transducer, at the level of the cricoid cartilage. Three measurements were obtained: 1) with the patient supine, 2) during a 10-second breath-hold with a positive inspiratory pressure (PIP) of 20 cm H
2
O, and 3) with the patient at 20 degrees TBRG. Data were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student-Newman-Keuls test, with a p
< 0.05 considered significant.
Measurements and Main Results:
In supine patients, the cross-sectional area of the RIJV was larger than the LIJV in 31 patients (69%), and equal or smaller in 14 patients (31%) (0.80 ± 0.38 vs
. 0.59 ± 0.22; p
= 0.002). A PIP hold, but not TBRG, significantly dilated the RIJV (0.8 ± 0.38 at baseline vs
. 0.93 ± 0.42 with TBRG; p
= not significant vs
. 1.1 ± 0.46 with PIP; p
< 0.05), whereas neither maneuver was effective with the LIJV.
Conclusions:
The cross-sectional area of the RIJV is often greater than the LIJV; the TBRG was not effective to increase the cross-sectional area of the internal jugular veins, and only a PIP hold increased significantly the cross-sectional area of the RIJV. In this study, the LIJV appeared of smaller size and less compliant compared with the RIJV. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0952-8180 1873-4529 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0952-8180(01)00220-3 |