Central Venous Catheters Versus Peripheral Veins for Sampling Blood Levels of Commonly Used Drugs
- 1 July 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
- Vol. 22 (4) , 234-237
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607198022004234
Abstract
Background: Our objective was to compare the accuracy of drug levels in blood samples obtained from central venous catheters with those from peripheral blood samples taken to monitor various drug levels. Methods: Pediatric patients with central venous catheters receiving aminoglycosides, vancomycin, or cyclosporine had central and peripheral blood samples obtained within 5 minutes of each other and analyzed simultaneously. We ascertained how well blood levels from central venous catheters compared with those from peripheral blood (the criterion standard). Results: There were no clinically significant differences between central and peripheral values for amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin, and vancomycin (both peaks and troughs). Preliminary data indicated that oral cyclosporine can be monitored via central venous catheter. In contrast, there was poor agreement between peripheral and central values when cyclosporine was administered by IV. Conclusions: Amikacin, gentamicin, tobramycin, vancomycin, and probably oral cyclosporine can be monitored accurately via central venous catheter. In contrast, IV cyclosporine should be monitored via peripheral blood. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition22:234-237, 1998)Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Monitoring of Cyclosporine Blood Levels From Central Venous LinesTherapeutic Drug Monitoring, 1994
- Volume of Blood Required to Obtain Central Venous Catheter Blood Cultures in Infants and ChildrenJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1993
- Aminoglycoside serum concentration sampling via central venous catheters: a potential source of clinical errorJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 1987
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986