Antonella Vezzani1, Tullio Manca1, Claudia Brusasco2, Gregorio Santori3, Luca Cantadori4, Andrea Ramelli1, Gianluca Gonzi5, Francesco Nicolini1, Tiziano Gherli1, Francesco Corradi6. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy. 2. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Mura Della Cappuccine 14, 16128, Genoa, Italy. 3. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Fidenza Hospital, AUSL of Parma, Parma, Italy. 5. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy. 6. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Mura Della Cappuccine 14, 16128, Genoa, Italy. francescorradi@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the success rate and safety of short-axis versus long-axis approaches to ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation. METHODS: A total of 190 patients requiring central venous cannulation following cardiac surgery were randomized to either short-axis or long-axis ultrasound-guided cannulation of the subclavian vein. Each cannulation was performed by anesthesiologists with at least 3 years' experience of ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation (>150 procedures/year, 50% short-axis and 50% long-axis). Success rate, insertion time, number of needle redirections, number of separate skin or vessel punctures, rate of mechanical complications, catheter misplacements, and incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection were documented for each procedure. RESULTS: The subclavian vein was successfully cannulated in all 190 patients. The mean insertion time was significantly shorter (p = 0.040) in the short-axis group (69 ± 74 s) than in the long-axis group (98 ± 103 s). The short-axis group was also associated with a higher overall success rate (96 vs. 78%, p < 0.001), first-puncture success rate (86 vs. 67%, p = 0.003), and first-puncture single-pass success rate (72 vs. 48%, p = 0.002), and with fewer needle redirections (0.39 ± 0.88 vs. 0.88 ± 1.15, p = 0.001), skin punctures (1.12 ± 0.38 vs. 1.28 ± 0.54, p = 0.019), and complications (3 vs. 13%, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The short-axis procedure for ultrasound-guided subclavian cannulation offers advantages over the long-axis approach in cardiac surgery patients.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the success rate and safety of short-axis versus long-axis approaches to ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation. METHODS: A total of 190 patients requiring central venous cannulation following cardiac surgery were randomized to either short-axis or long-axis ultrasound-guided cannulation of the subclavian vein. Each cannulation was performed by anesthesiologists with at least 3 years' experience of ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation (>150 procedures/year, 50% short-axis and 50% long-axis). Success rate, insertion time, number of needle redirections, number of separate skin or vessel punctures, rate of mechanical complications, catheter misplacements, and incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection were documented for each procedure. RESULTS: The subclavian vein was successfully cannulated in all 190 patients. The mean insertion time was significantly shorter (p = 0.040) in the short-axis group (69 ± 74 s) than in the long-axis group (98 ± 103 s). The short-axis group was also associated with a higher overall success rate (96 vs. 78%, p < 0.001), first-puncture success rate (86 vs. 67%, p = 0.003), and first-puncture single-pass success rate (72 vs. 48%, p = 0.002), and with fewer needle redirections (0.39 ± 0.88 vs. 0.88 ± 1.15, p = 0.001), skin punctures (1.12 ± 0.38 vs. 1.28 ± 0.54, p = 0.019), and complications (3 vs. 13%, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The short-axis procedure for ultrasound-guided subclavian cannulation offers advantages over the long-axis approach in cardiac surgery patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous cannulation; Scanning axis; Subclavian vein; Ultrasound
Authors: J Merrer; B De Jonghe; F Golliot; J Y Lefrant; B Raffy; E Barre; J P Rigaud; D Casciani; B Misset; C Bosquet; H Outin; C Brun-Buisson; G Nitenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jean-Jacques Parienti; Damien du Cheyron; Jean-François Timsit; Ousmane Traoré; Pierre Kalfon; Olivier Mimoz; Leonard A Mermel Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Talayeh Rezayat; Jeffrey R Stowell; John L Kendall; Elizabeth Turner; J Christian Fox; Igor Barjaktarevic Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-02