BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are commonly inserted for hemodynamic monitoring, volume monitoring, administration of medications, long-term total parenteral nutrition, access for renal replacement therapy, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and difficult peripheral catheterization. The primary outcome of this study was to define venipuncture, catheterization and entire procedure success rates, and finally complication rate of subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach with special focus on mechanically ventilated patients. The secondary outcome was to potentially make recommendations regarding this technique of central venous catheterization in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The methodology of this prospective cohort study included subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach. The technique of cannulation was the same for both the right and left sides, but the right claviculosternocleidomastoid angle was the preferred catheterization site. All procedures were performed by the first three authors, each of whom had different levels of experience. Each physician had performed at least 20 procedures before starting the study. RESULTS: In the majority of patients, venipuncture occurred during the first attempt. In 362 patients, catheterization attempts were performed, in whom 311 catheterizations (85.6%) were successful during the first attempt. The overall subclavian venous catheterization via supraclavicular approach procedure complication rate reached 1.7% (95% confidence interval 0.6-3.6%). The overall subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach procedure success rate reached 88.9% (95% confidence interval 85.1-91.9%, n = 359). CONCLUSIONS: Subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach is an excellent method of central venous access in mechanically ventilated patients. The procedure success rate and the significant complication rate are comparable to other techniques of central venous catheterization.
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters are commonly inserted for hemodynamic monitoring, volume monitoring, administration of medications, long-term total parenteral nutrition, access for renal replacement therapy, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and difficult peripheral catheterization. The primary outcome of this study was to define venipuncture, catheterization and entire procedure success rates, and finally complication rate of subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach with special focus on mechanically ventilated patients. The secondary outcome was to potentially make recommendations regarding this technique of central venous catheterization in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: The methodology of this prospective cohort study included subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach. The technique of cannulation was the same for both the right and left sides, but the right claviculosternocleidomastoid angle was the preferred catheterization site. All procedures were performed by the first three authors, each of whom had different levels of experience. Each physician had performed at least 20 procedures before starting the study. RESULTS: In the majority of patients, venipuncture occurred during the first attempt. In 362 patients, catheterization attempts were performed, in whom 311 catheterizations (85.6%) were successful during the first attempt. The overall subclavian venous catheterization via supraclavicular approach procedure complication rate reached 1.7% (95% confidence interval 0.6-3.6%). The overall subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach procedure success rate reached 88.9% (95% confidence interval 85.1-91.9%, n = 359). CONCLUSIONS: Subclavian venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach is an excellent method of central venous access in mechanically ventilated patients. The procedure success rate and the significant complication rate are comparable to other techniques of central venous catheterization.
Authors: Joshua Warren Sappenfield; William Brit Smith; Lou Ann Cooper; David Lizdas; Drew B Gonsalves; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Samsun Lampotang; Albert R Robinson Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.108