Central venous catheters (CVCs) are often trimmed during heart transplantation and pediatric cardiac surgery. However, the risk of endothelial injury caused by the cut tip of the CVC has not been evaluated. We hypothesized that there is no difference in the degree of endothelial injury associated with trimmed CVCs versus standard untrimmed CVCs.In four adult male sheep, the left external jugular vein was exposed in three segments, one designated for an untouched control group, one for the trimmed CVC group, and one for the untrimmed CVC group. Trimmed and untrimmed CVC tips were rotated circumferentially within their respective segments to abrade the lumen of the vein. The vein samples were explanted, and two representative sections from each sample were analyzed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, as well as with immunohistochemistry against CD31, von Willebrand factor (vWF), endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), and caveolin. Higher immunohistochemical stain distributions and intensities are associated with normal health and function of the venous endothelium. Data are presented as counts with percentages or as means with standard error.H&E staining revealed no evidence of endothelial injury in 6/8 (75%) samples from the untouched control group, and no injury in 4/8 (50%) samples from both the trimmed and untrimmed CVC groups (p?=?0.504). In all remaining samples from each group, only mild endothelial injury was observed. Immunohistochemical analysis comparing trimmed CVCs versus untrimmed CVCs revealed no difference in the percentage of endothelial cells staining positive for CD31 (57.5%?±?7.2% vs 55.0%?±?9.2%, p?=?0.982), vWF (73.8%?±?8.0% vs 62.5%?±?9.6%, p?=?0.579), eNOS (66.3%?±?4.2% vs 63.8%?±?7.5%, p?=?0.962), and caveolin (53.8%?±?5.0% vs 51.3%?±?4.4%, p?=?0.922). There were no significant differences between the groups in the distributions of stain intensity for CD31, vWF, eNOS, and caveolin.Trimmed CVCs do not increase endothelial injury compared to standard untrimmed CVCs.
View details for DOI 10.1177/11297298231153716
View details for PubMedID 36765464