Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: A prospective randomized study

Γενικό Νοσοκομείο Ασκληπιείο Βούλας, Βούλα, Attica, Greece
Critical care medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 07/2011; 39(7):1607-12. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318218a1ae
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Subclavian vein catheterization may cause various complications. We compared the real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation vs. the landmark method in critical care patients.
Prospective randomized study.
Medical intensive care unit of a tertiary medical center.
Four hundred sixty-three mechanically ventilated patients enrolled in a randomized controlled ISRCTN-registered trial (ISRCTN-61258470).
We compared the ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation (200 patients) vs. the landmark method (201 patients) using an infraclavicular needle insertion point in all cases. Catheterization was performed under nonemergency conditions in the intensive care unit. Randomization was performed by means of a computer-generated random-numbers table and patients were stratified with regard to age, gender, and body mass index.
No significant differences in the presence of risk factors for difficult cannulation between the two groups of patients were recorded. Subclavian vein cannulation was achieved in 100% of patients in the ultrasound group as compared with 87.5% in the landmark one (p < .05). Average access time and number of attempts were significantly reduced in the ultrasound group of patients compared with the landmark group (p < .05). In the landmark group, artery puncture and hematoma occurred in 5.4% of patients, respectively, hemothorax in 4.4%, pneumothorax in 4.9%, brachial plexus injury in 2.9%, phrenic nerve injury in 1.5%, and cardiac tamponade in 0.5%, which were all increased compared with the ultrasound group (p < .05). Catheter misplacements did not differ between groups. In this study, the real-time ultrasound method was rated on a semiquantitative scale as technically difficult by the participating physicians.
The present data suggested that ultrasound-guided cannulation of the subclavian vein in critical care patients is superior to the landmark method and should be the method of choice in these patients.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We present a case of needle separation during central venous catheter (CVC) placement in a super morbidly obese patient with subsequent surgical intervention in its retrieval. This complication, potentially lethal due to the relevant anatomy of such a procedure, alerts critical care physicians and surgeons to the possibility of equipment failure and stresses proper technique in what has become a routine procedure. It also emphasizes the routine use of ultrasound-guidance for cannulation in patients of any body habitus. While infection and arrhythmia are the generally known complications of CVC placement, clinicians must be alert to unanticipated events such as needle separation. In our case, the retrieval of this needle required multi-disciplinary intervention between radiology, critical care, vascular surgery, and thoracic surgery. Our event stresses hypervigilance to complications in a common procedure.
    Patient Safety in Surgery 02/2015; 9:9. DOI:10.1186/s13037-014-0049-y
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is an important procedure in emergency departments (EDs). Despite existence of ultrasonography (US) devices in every ED, CVC is done using anatomical landmarks in many EDs in Iran. This study aimed to compare the traditional landmark method vs. US-guided method of CVC placement in terms of complications and success rate. In this randomized controlled trial, patients who were candidate for internal jugular vein catheterization, and referred to Baqiyatallah Hospital ED were randomly allocated into US-guided CVC and anatomical landmarks guided CVC groups. Central vein access time, number of attempts, success rate, and complications in each group were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U, chi-square and Fisher exact tests along with Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to analyze the data. Out of 100 patients, 56 were male and 44 were female. No significant differences were found between the US-guided and traditional landmark methods of CVC insertion in terms of age, gender, BMI, and site of catheter insertion. The mean access time was significantly lower in the US-guided group (37.12 ± 17.33 s vs. 63.42 ± 35.19 s, P < 0.001). The mean number of attempts was also significantly lower in the US-guided group (1.12 ± 0.3 vs. 1.58 ± 0.64 times, P < 0.001). Eighty-eight percent of patients in the US-guided group were catheterized in the first attempt, while 50% of patients in the traditional landmark group were catheterized in the second or more attempts (P < 0.001). The success rate was 100% in the US-guided group, while it was 88% in the landmark group (P = 0.013). Moreover, the rate of complications was significantly lower in the US-guided group (4% vs. 24%, P = 0.004). The US-guided method for CVC placement was superior to the traditional landmark method in terms of access time, number of attempts, success rate, and fewer complications.
    12/2014; 3(4).
  • Source
    08/2014; 3(3):e17328. DOI:10.5812/cardiovascmed.17328

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014