Huajin Pang1, Yong Chen2, Xuehan Liu3, Xiaofeng He2, Weizhen Wang4, Zhi Liu4. 1. Department of Interventional Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. nfyyphj@163.com. 2. Department of Interventional Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 4. Department of Medical Ultrasound, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided subclavian vein catheterization in pediatric population with hematologic diseases. METHODS: A randomized prospective study of subclavian vein catheterization in pediatric population with hematologic diseases was performed. After randomization, the patients were assigned to either ultrasound- or fluoroscopy-guided subclavian vein catheterization. The primary outcome was number of attempts at venous cannulation. Secondary outcomes included: catheterization success rate, fluoroscopy time, operation time, and surgical complications. RESULTS: There were 170 children enrolled between February 2017 and July 2018. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to the demographic data. Success within 3 attempts was achieved in 82 cases (82/87, 92.0%) in the ultrasound (US) group vs. 65 cases (65/83, 78.3%) in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.002). The average operation time was 10(7) min in US group vs. 10(6) min in fluoroscopy group (P = 0.722). There were 3 complications in the US group, while there were 6 complications in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.321). There were 4 catheter-related thrombosis (CRTs) found in the US group during follow-up, however there was no CRT in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.121). CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound-guided venous puncture is a more accurate method of subclavian vein catheterization. However, the catheter tip can be placed more precisely by fluoroscopy. Thus, combined ultrasound-and fluoroscopy-guided technology is more efficient in subclavian vein catheterization of children with hematologic disease.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided subclavian vein catheterization in pediatric population with hematologic diseases. METHODS: A randomized prospective study of subclavian vein catheterization in pediatric population with hematologic diseases was performed. After randomization, the patients were assigned to either ultrasound- or fluoroscopy-guided subclavian vein catheterization. The primary outcome was number of attempts at venous cannulation. Secondary outcomes included: catheterization success rate, fluoroscopy time, operation time, and surgical complications. RESULTS: There were 170 children enrolled between February 2017 and July 2018. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to the demographic data. Success within 3 attempts was achieved in 82 cases (82/87, 92.0%) in the ultrasound (US) group vs. 65 cases (65/83, 78.3%) in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.002). The average operation time was 10(7) min in US group vs. 10(6) min in fluoroscopy group (P = 0.722). There were 3 complications in the US group, while there were 6 complications in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.321). There were 4 catheter-related thrombosis (CRTs) found in the US group during follow-up, however there was no CRT in the fluoroscopy group (P = 0.121). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided venous puncture is a more accurate method of subclavian vein catheterization. However, the catheter tip can be placed more precisely by fluoroscopy. Thus, combined ultrasound-and fluoroscopy-guided technology is more efficient in subclavian vein catheterization of children with hematologic disease.
Authors: Petra E Duran-Gehring; Faheem W Guirgis; Kristin C McKee; Susan Goggans; Huynh Tran; Colleen J Kalynych; Robert L Wears Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Nicolas Nardi; Eric Wodey; Bruno Laviolle; François De La Brière; Séverine Delahaye; Charlotte Engrand; Cécile Gauvrit; Sabrina Dessard; Anne Defontaine; Claude Ecoffey Journal: Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Justin J Hourmozdi; Abraham Markin; Brad Johnson; Patrick R Fleming; Joseph B Miller Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jasper M Smit; Reinder Raadsen; Michiel J Blans; Manfred Petjak; Peter M Van de Ven; Pieter R Tuinman Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Zied Merchaoui; Ulrik Lausten-Thomsen; Florence Pierre; Maher Ben Laiba; Nolwenn Le Saché; Pierre Tissieres Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 3.418