PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US)-guided internal jugular vein access has been the standard practice of central venous port (CVP) placement. The subclavian vein (SCV) access has also been preferred, but has potential risk of pinch-off syndrome (POS). The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of US-guided SCV access to avoid POS in patients with CVP. METHODS: Included in this study were patients who had undergone CVP placement via the SCV. We mainly assessed the computed tomography (CT) findings from two different placement techniques of a CVP via the SCV: (i) venipuncture point described by the ratio between the distance from the venipuncture point to the sternoclavicular joint and the clavicular length; and (ii) presence of direct attachment of the catheter to the clavicle. Secondary outcome was POS rate associated with two different placement techniques of CVP via the SCV. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were included in this study between August 2007 and January 2011. A total of 100 patients (42.2%) underwent CVP placement using the landmark technique while 137 patients (57.8%) underwent CVP placement by US guidance. CT revealed that the US-guided technique tended to be lateral SCV approach compared with the landmark technique (p<0.001). A total of four patients (1.7%) experienced POS, all of them in the landmark group. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the US-guided technique determines a more lateral SCV approach, with a reduced POS risk than the landmark venipuncture technique.
PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US)-guided internal jugular vein access has been the standard practice of central venous port (CVP) placement. The subclavian vein (SCV) access has also been preferred, but has potential risk of pinch-off syndrome (POS). The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of US-guided SCV access to avoid POS in patients with CVP. METHODS: Included in this study were patients who had undergone CVP placement via the SCV. We mainly assessed the computed tomography (CT) findings from two different placement techniques of a CVP via the SCV: (i) venipuncture point described by the ratio between the distance from the venipuncture point to the sternoclavicular joint and the clavicular length; and (ii) presence of direct attachment of the catheter to the clavicle. Secondary outcome was POS rate associated with two different placement techniques of CVP via the SCV. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were included in this study between August 2007 and January 2011. A total of 100 patients (42.2%) underwent CVP placement using the landmark technique while 137 patients (57.8%) underwent CVP placement by US guidance. CT revealed that the US-guided technique tended to be lateral SCV approach compared with the landmark technique (p<0.001). A total of four patients (1.7%) experienced POS, all of them in the landmark group. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the US-guided technique determines a more lateral SCV approach, with a reduced POS risk than the landmark venipuncture technique.