Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective study

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 6, 2022
Download
pdf
Vol. 100 No. 7 (2022): Issue Jul 2022

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Mechaal Benali
Becem Trabelsi
Hadhemi Abdouli
Azza Yedes
Hichem Elhadj Kacem
Mohamed Fki

Abstract

Background: Several clinical practice guidelines strongly support the use of ultrasound guidance (USG) for internal jugular vein catheterization. The level of
evidence concerning the use of USG for subclavian vein (SCV) cannulation remains low.

Aim: To compare the effectiveness and safety of USG and anatomical landmarks approaches for cannulation of SCV.

Methods: This was a prospective randomized study. Patients aged over 18 years old who requiring elective central venous catheterization were included.
Non-inclusion criteria were thrombosis of the vein or major coagulopathy. All catheterizations were performed by two anaesthesiology residents. Patients were
randomized into two groups: ultrasound guidance group (US group) and anatomical landmarks (LM group). The main outcome was the success rate. The
secondary outcomes were the first attempt success rate and the incidence of complications.

Results: Seventy patients were included (35 in each group). The success rate was higher in US group compared to LM group without statistical significance (100%
vs 85.7%; p=0.054). The first attempt success rate was significantly higher in the US group (82.9% vs. 40%; p<10-3). The incidence of mechanical complications
was significantly lower in the US group compared to LM group (5.7% vs. 37.1%; p=0,001).

Conclusion: according to our study, US guidance for SCV catheterization seems to be an interesting alternative to anatomical landmarks approaches

Keywords:

catheterization - subclavian vein - ultrasonography - intensive care units.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Choron RL, Wang A, Orden KV, Capano-Wehrle L, Seamon M J. Emergency central venous catheterization during trauma resuscitation: a safety analysis by site. Am Surg 2015;81(5 Suppl):527-31.
  2. Parienti J-J, Mongardon N, Mégarbane B, Mira J-P, Kalfon P, Gros A, et al. Intravascular Complications of Central Venous Catheterization by Insertion Site. N Engl J Med 2015;373(13 Suppl):1220–9.
  3. Lockwood J, Desai N. Central venous access. Br J Hosp Med 2019;80(8 Suppl):C114-9.
  4. Timsit JF. What is the best site for central venous catheter insertion incritically ill patients?. Crit Care 2003;7(6 Suppl):397-9.
  5. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med [Internet] 1994;331(26 Suppl):1735–8.
  6. Saugel B, Scheeren TWL , Teboul JL. Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice. Crit Care 2017; 21(1 Suppl):225.
  7. Shrestha BR, Gautam B. Ultrasound versus the landmark technique: a prospective randomized comparative study of internal jugular vein cannulation in an intensive care unit. J Nepal Med Assoc 2011;51(182 Suppl):56-61.
  8. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot Eet al. Realtime ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006;10(6 Suppl):R162.
  9. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;1(1 Suppl):CD011447.
  10. Aubaniac R. The subclavian vein puncture--advantages and technique. 1952. Nutrition 1990;6(2):139–40; discussion 141.
  11. Vogel J A., Haukoos JS, Erickson CLet al. Is longaxis view superior to short-axis view in ultrasoundguided central venous catheterization? Crit Care Med [Internet] 2015;43(4 Suppl):832–9.
  12. SELDINGER SI. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta radiol 1953;39(5 Suppl):368-76.
  13. Maizel J, Bastide M-A, Richecoeur J, Frenoy E, Lemaire C, Sauneuf B et al.Practice of ultrasoundguided central venous catheter technique by the French intensivists: a survey from the BoReal study group. Ann Intensive Care 2016;6(1 Suppl):76.
  14. The American Society of Anesthesiologists. Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access. Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2020;132(1 Suppl):8-43.
  15. Schmidt GA, Blaivas M, Conrad SA et al. Ultrasoundguided vascular access in critical illness. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45(4 Suppl):434-46.
  16. Lalu MM, Fayad A, Ahmed O et al. Ultrasound-Guided Subclavian Vein Catheterization. Crit Care Med [Internet] 2015;43(7 Suppl):1498–507.
  17. Hatfield A, Bodenham A. Portable ultrasound for difficult central venous access. Br J Anaesth 1999;82(6 Suppl):822–6.
  18. Sommerkamp SK, Romaniuk VM, Witting MD, Ford DR, Allison MG, Euerle BD. A comparison of longitudinal and transverse approaches to ultrasoundguided axillary vein cannulation. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31(3 Suppl):478-81.
  19. Stone MB, Moon C, Sutijono D, Blaivas M. Needle tip visualization during ultrasound-guided vascular access: short-axis vs long-axis approach. Am J Emerg Med 2010; 28(3 Suppl):343-7.
  20. Gualtieri E, Deppe S a, Sipperly ME, Thompson DR. Subclavian venouscatheterization: greater success rate for less experienced operators using ultrasound guidance. Crit Care Med 1995;23(4 Suppl):692-7.