Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2012 Mar 14;2012(3):CD004084.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004084.pub3.

Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection

Xiaoli Ge  1 , Rodrigo Cavallazzi, Chunbo Li, Shu Ming Pan, Ying Wei Wang, Fei-Long Wang
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection

Xiaoli Ge et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Central venous access (CVA) is widely used. However, its thrombotic, stenotic and infectious complications can be life-threatening and involve high-cost therapy. Research revealed that the risk of catheter-related complications varied according to the site of CVA. It would be helpful to find the preferred site of insertion to minimize the risk of catheter-related complications. This review was originally published in 2007 and was updated in 2011.

Objectives: 1. Our primary objective was to establish whether the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes resulted in a lower incidence of venous thrombosis, venous stenosis or infections related to CVA devices in adult patients.2. Our secondary objective was to assess whether the jugular, subclavian or femoral CVA routes influenced the incidence of catheter-related mechanical complications in adult patients; and the reasons why patients left the studies early.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9), MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE (from inception to September 2011), four Chinese databases (CBM, WANFANG DATA, CAJD, VIP Database) (from inception to November 2011), Google Scholar and bibliographies of published reviews. The original search was performed in December 2006. We also contacted researchers in the field. There were no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing central venous catheter insertion routes.

Data collection and analysis: Three authors assessed potentially relevant studies independently. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Dichotomous data on catheter-related complications were analysed. We calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random-effects model.

Main results: We identified 5854 citations from the initial search strategy; 28 references were then identified as potentially relevant. Of these, we Included four studies with data from 1513 participants. We undertook a priori subgroup analysis according to the duration of catheterization, short-term (< one month) and long-term (> one month) defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).No randomized controlled trial (RCT) was found comparing all three CVA routes and reporting the complications of venous stenosis.Regarding internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes, the evidence was moderate and applicable for long-term catheterization in cancer patients. Subclavian and internal jugular CVA routes had similar risks for catheter-related complications. Regarding femoral versus subclavian CVA routes, the evidence was high and applicable for short-term catheterization in critically ill patients. Subclavian CVA routes were preferable to femoral CVA routes in short-term catheterization because femoral CVA routes were associated with higher risks of catheter colonization (14.18% or 19/134 versus 2.21% or 3/136) (n = 270, one RCT, RR 6.43, 95% CI 1.95 to 21.21) and thrombotic complications (21.55% or 25/116 versus 1.87% or 2/107) (n = 223, one RCT, RR 11.53, 95% CI 2.80 to 47.52) than with subclavian CVA routes. Regarding femoral versus internal jugular routes, the evidence was moderate and applicable for short-term haemodialysis catheterization in critically ill patients. No significant differences were found between femoral and internal jugular CVA routes in catheter colonization, catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombotic complications, but fewer mechanical complications occurred in femoral CVA routes (4.86% or 18/370 versus 9.56% or 35/366) (n = 736, one RCT, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88).

Authors' conclusions: Subclavian and internal jugular CVA routes have similar risks for catheter-related complications in long-term catheterization in cancer patients. Subclavian CVA is preferable to femoral CVA in short-term catheterization because of lower risks of catheter colonization and thrombotic complications. In short-term haemodialysis catheterization, femoral and internal jugular CVA routes have similar risks for catheter-related complications except internal jugular CVA routes are associated with higher risks of mechanical complications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known

Figures

1
1
Search results
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes: long‐term catheterization, Outcome 1 Catheter related infectious complications.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes: long‐term catheterization, Outcome 2 Catheter related thrombotic complications.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes: long‐term catheterization, Outcome 3 Immediate mechanical complications.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes: long‐term catheterization, Outcome 4 Late mechanical complications.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Internal jugular versus subclavian CVA routes: long‐term catheterization, Outcome 5 Leaving the studies early.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Biffi 2009 {published data only}
    1. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, et al. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter‐related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Annals of Oncology 2009;20(5):935‐40. [PUBMED: 19179550] - PubMed
Merrer 2001 {published data only}
    1. Merrer J, Jonghe B, Golliot F, Lefrant JY, Raffy B, Barre E, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286(6):700‐7. [PUBMED: 11495620] - PubMed
Parienti 2008 {published data only}
    1. Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Megarbane B, Souweine B, Ouchikhe A, Polito A, et al. Femoral vs jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299(20):2413‐22. [PUBMED: 18505951] - PubMed
Wang 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wang S‐X. complications of two different central venous insertion sites. Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing 2006;22(11):46‐7.

References to studies excluded from this review

Araujo 2008 {published data only}
    1. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, et al. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2008;34(2):222‐6. [PUBMED: 17566692] - PubMed
Chen 2008 {published data only}
    1. Chen L‐Z. Comparison of internal jugular vein and femoral vein detention double‐lumen catheter in hemodialysis. Journal of Anhui Health Vocational & Technical College 2008;7(3):68‐9.
Cui 2008 {published data only}
    1. Cui L, Tang M, Shi D‐Y, Ma Q‐L, Wang X‐D. Central venous catheter related infection and dangerous factors after cardiovascular surgery. Chinese Journal of Postgraduates of Medicine 2008;31(20):41‐2.
Deshpande 2005 {published data only}
    1. Deshpande KS, Hatem C, Ulrich HL, Currie BP, Aldrich TK, Bryan‐Brown CW, et al. The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population. Critical Care Medicine 2005;33(1):13‐20; discussion 234‐5. [PUBMED: 15644643] - PubMed
Dhawan 2001 {published data only}
    1. Dhawan B, Chaudhry R, Hote M, Bhan A, Venugopal P. Infective complications of central venous catheters in cardiac surgical patients. Indian Journal of Pathology & Microbiology 2001;44(2):125‐9. [PUBMED: 11883126] - PubMed
Fan 2011 {published data only}
    1. Fan G‐J, Xu M‐Z. Application and nursing of different central venous access routs in hemodialysis. Gangxi Medical Journal 2011;33(5):622‐4.
Goetz 1998 {published data only}
    1. Goetz AM, Wagener MM, Miller JM, Muder RR. Risk of infection due to central venous catheters: effect of site of placement and catheter type. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 1998;19(11):842‐5. [PUBMED: 9831940] - PubMed
Gowardman 2008 {published data only}
    1. Gowardman JR, Robertson IK, Parkes S, Rickard CM. Influence of insertion site on central venous catheter colonization and bloodstream infection rates. Intensive Care Medicine 2008;34(6):1038‐45. [PUBMED: 18317732] - PubMed
Huang 2009 {published data only}
    1. Huang G‐L. Prospective comparison study of the safety and efficiency about temporary central venous catheterization on different location in haemodialysis patients. Jinan university Master's degree paper 2009.
Kaiser 1981 {published data only}
    1. Kaiser CW, Koornick AR, Smith N, Soroff HS. Choice of route for central venous cannulation: subclavian or internal jugular vein? A prospective randomized study. Journal of Surgical Oncology 1981;17(4):345‐54. [PUBMED: 7265974] - PubMed
Lorente 2005 {published data only}
    1. Lorente L, Henry C, Martin MM, Jimenez A, Mora ML. Central venous catheter‐related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Critical Care (London, England) 2005;9(6):R631‐5. [PUBMED: 16280064] - PMC - PubMed
Mer 2009 {published data only}
    1. Mer M, Duse AG, Galpin JS, Richards GA. Central venous catheterization: a prospective, randomized, double‐blind study. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis 2009;15(1):19‐26. [PUBMED: 18593746] - PubMed
Miao 2010 {published data only}
    1. Miao L‐Y, Liu J‐F, Li X‐R, Ren Y. Application of various ways of central vein catheterization in hemodialysis. Journal of Qiqihar Medical College 2010;31(18):2862‐4.
Moini 2009 {published data only}
    1. Moini M, Rasouli MR, Kenari MM, Mahmoodi HR. Non‐cuffed dual lumen catheters in the external jugular veins versus other central veins for hemodialysis patients. Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation 2009;20(1):44‐8. [PUBMED: 19112218] - PubMed
Moretti 2005 {published data only}
    1. Moretti EW, Ofstead CL, Kristy RM, Wetzler HP. Impact of central venous catheter type and methods on catheter‐related colonization and bacteraemia. The Journal of Hospital Infection 2005;61(2):139‐45. [PUBMED: 16026898] - PubMed
Pang 2009 {published data only}
    1. Pang D‐C, Liao Z‐N, Fan H‐O. Comparison of three central venous insertion sites in patients after neurosurgical operation. Journal of Minimally Invasive Medicine 2009;4(3):241‐3.
Richet 1990 {published data only}
    1. Richet H, Hubert B, Nitemberg G, Andremont A, Buu‐Hoi A, Ourbak P, et al. Prospective multicenter study of vascular‐catheter‐related complications and risk factors for positive central‐catheter cultures in intensive care unit patients. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1990;28(11):2520‐5. [PUBMED: 2254429] - PMC - PubMed
Schillinger 1991 {published data only}
    1. Schillinger F, Schillinger D, Montagnac R, Milcent T. Post catheterisation vein stenosis in haemodialysis: comparative angiographic study of 50 subclavian and 50 internal jugular accesses. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1991;6(10):722‐4. [PUBMED: 1754109] - PubMed
Senagore 1987 {published data only}
    1. Senagore A, Waller JD, Bonnell BW, Bursch LR, Scholten DJ. Pulmonary artery catheterization: a prospective study of internal jugular and subclavian approaches. Critical Care Medicine 1987;15(1):35‐7. [PUBMED: 3539524] - PubMed
Torgay 2005 {published data only}
    1. Torgay A, Pirat A, Candan S, Zeyneloglu P, Arslan G, Haberal M. Internal jugular versus subclavian vein catheterization for central venous catheterization in orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 2005;37(7):3171‐3. [PUBMED: 16213340] - PubMed
Trottier 1995 {published data only}
    1. Trottier SJ, Veremakis C, O'Brien J, Auer AI. Femoral deep vein thrombosis associated with central venous catheterization: results from a prospective, randomized trial. Critical Care Medicine 1995;23(1):52‐9. [PUBMED: 8001386] - PubMed
Wang 2011 {published data only}
    1. Wang Y‐J, Fu J‐Y, Li X‐J. Comparison of three kinds of central venous access routes in stroke patients. Chinese Rural Health Service Administration 2011;31(2):215‐7.
Young 2005 {published data only}
    1. Young EJ, Contreras G, Robert NE, Vogt NJ, Courtney TM. Incidence and influencing factors associated with exit site infections in temporary catheters for hemodialysis and apheresis. Nephrology Nursing Journal 2005;32(1):41‐50. [PUBMED: 15787083] - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Xie 2003 {published data only}
    1. Xie X‐H, Liu M‐Y, Peng J, Wen J. A comparative study on CVC‐related infection via different accesses in ICU. Nursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army 2003;20(7):10‐1.

Additional references

Alhimyary 1996
    1. Alhimyary A, Fernandez C, Picard M, Tierno K, Pignatone N, Chan HS, et al. Safety and efficacy of total parenteral nutrition delivered via a peripherally inserted central venous catheter. Nutrition and Clinical Practice 1996;11(5):199‐203. [MEDLINE: ] - PubMed
Bishop 2007
    1. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P, Kibbler C, et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. International Journal of Laboratory Hematology 2007;29(4):261‐78. [PUBMED: 17617077] - PubMed
Borenstein 2010
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 2010;1(2):97‐111. - PubMed
Cimochowski 1990
    1. Cimochowski GE, Worley E, Rutherford WE, Sartain J, Blondin J, Harter H. Superiority of the internal jugular over the subclavian access for temporary dialysis. Nephron 1990;54(2):154‐61. [PUBMED: 2314526] - PubMed
Collignon 1988
    1. Collignon P, Soni N, Pearson I, Sorrell T, Woods P. Sepsis associated with central vein catheters in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Medicine 1988;14(3):227‐31. [PUBMED: 3379183] - PubMed
De Jonge 2005
    1. Jonge RC, Polderman KH, Gemke RJ. Central venous catheter use in the pediatric patient: mechanical and infectious complications. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2005;6(3):329‐39. [PUBMED: 15857534] - PubMed
Debourdeau 2009
    1. Debourdeau P, Kassab Chahmi D, Gal G, Kriegel I, Desruennes E, Douard MC, et al. 2008 SOR guidelines for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer: report from the working group. Annals of Oncology 2009;20(9):1459‐71. [PUBMED: 19525362] - PubMed
Dimick 2001
    1. Dimick JB, Pelz RK, Consunji R, Swoboda SM, Hendrix CW, Lipsett PA. Increased resource use associated with catheter‐related bloodstream infection in the surgical intensive care unit. Archives of Surgery 2001;136(2):229‐34. [PUBMED: 11177147] - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta‐analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315(7121):1533‐7. [PUBMED: 9432252] - PMC - PubMed
FDA 1995
    1. U.S. Food, Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance on Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submission for Short‐Term Long‐Tern Intravascular Catheters. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/... (accessed 24th March 2011).
Harb 2005
    1. Harb A, Estphan G, Nitenberg G, Chachaty E, Raynard B, Blot F. Indwelling time and risk of infection of dialysis catheters in critically ill cancer patients. Intensive Care Medicine 2005;31(6):812‐7. [PUBMED: 15834707] - PubMed
Hernandez 1998
    1. Hernandez D, Diaz F, Rufino M, Lorenzo V, Perez T, Rodriguez A, et al. Subclavian vascular access stenosis in dialysis patients: natural history and risk factors. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1998;9(8):1507‐10. [PUBMED: 9697674] - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hye 1996
    1. Hye RJ, Stabile BE. Complications of percutaneous vascular access procedures and their management. In: Wilson SE editor(s). Vascular Access: Principles and Practice. 3rd Edition. St Louis: Mosby, 1996:92‐103.
Kuter 2004
    1. Kuter DJ. Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients. The Oncologist 2004;9(2):207‐16. [PUBMED: 15047925] - PubMed
Li 2009
    1. Li C, Xia J, Wang J. Risperidone dose for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007474.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
McGee 2003
    1. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. The New England Journal of Medicine 2003;348(12):1123‐33. [PUBMED: 12646670] - PubMed
Mermel 2000
    1. Mermel LA. Prevention of intravascular catheter‐related infections. Annals of Internal Medicine 2000;132(5):391‐402. [PUBMED: 10691590] - PubMed
Mermel 2009
    1. Mermel LA, Allon M, Bouza E, Craven DE, Flynn P, O'Grady NP, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter‐related infection: 2009 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2009;49(1):1‐45. [PUBMED: 19489710] - PMC - PubMed
NICE 2002
    1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. Technology Appraisal Guidance Number 49. September 2002. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Ultrasound_49_GUIDANCE.pdf(accessed ninth August 2011).
Rello 2000
    1. Rello J, Ochagavia A, Sabanes E, Roque M, Mariscal D, Reynaga E, et al. Evaluation of outcome of intravenous catheter‐related infections in critically ill patients. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2000;162(3 Pt 1):1027‐30. [PUBMED: 10988125] - PubMed
Reusch 2002
    1. Reusch S, Walder B, Tramer MR. Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian access ‐ a systematic review. Critical Care Medicine 2002;30(2):454‐60. - PubMed
RevMan 5.1 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,, 2011.
Souweine 2006
    1. Souweine B, Liotier J, Heng AE, Isnard M, Ackoundou‐N'Guessan C, Deteix P, et al. Catheter colonization in acute renal failure patients: comparison of central venous and dialysis catheters. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2006;47(5):879‐87. [PUBMED: 16632028] - PubMed
Timsit 2003
    1. Timsit JF. What is the best site for central venous catheter insertion in critically ill patients?. Critical Care (London, England) 2003;7(6):397‐9. [PUBMED: 14624670] - PMC - PubMed
Xia 2009
    1. Xia J, Adams C, Bhagat N, Bhagat V, Bhoopathi P, El‐Sayeh H, et al. Losing participants before the end of the trial erodes credibility of findings. Psychiatric Bulletin 2009;33:254‐7.
Yellin 1996
    1. Yellin AE, Hood DB, Weaver FA. Axillo‐subclavian vein thrombosis. In: Wilson SE editor(s). Vascular Access: Principles and Practice. 3rd Edition. St Louis: Mosby, 1996:104‐9.
Zhang 2008
    1. Zhang LF, Zhao XP, Cai YM, He LC. Meta analysis of two approaches for central venous catheterization trough deep vein puncture. Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing 2008;24(6):57‐60.

References to other published versions of this review

Hamilton 2007
    1. Hamilton HC, Foxcroft D. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection in patients requiring long‐term intravenous therapy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004084.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms