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
. 2015 Jan 9;1(1):CD011447.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011447.

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization

Patrick Brass  1 , Martin Hellmich, Laurentius Kolodziej, Guido Schick, Andrew F Smith
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization

Patrick Brass et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Central venous catheters can help with diagnosis and treatment of the critically ill. The catheter may be placed in a large vein in the neck (internal jugular vein), upper chest (subclavian vein) or groin (femoral vein). Whilst this is beneficial overall, inserting the catheter risks arterial puncture and other complications and should be performed in as few attempts as possible.In the past, anatomical 'landmarks' on the body surface were used to find the correct place to insert these catheters, but ultrasound imaging is now available. A Doppler mode is sometimes used to supplement plain 'two-dimensional' ultrasound.

Objectives: The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two-dimensional ultrasound (US)- or Doppler ultrasound (USD)-guided puncture techniques for subclavian vein, axillary vein and femoral vein puncture during central venous catheter insertion in adults and children. We assessed whether there was a difference in complication rates between traditional landmark-guided and any ultrasound-guided central vein puncture.When possible, we also assessed the following secondary objectives: whether a possible difference could be verified with use of the US technique versus the USD technique; whether there was a difference between using ultrasound throughout the puncture ('direct') and using it only to identify and mark the vein before starting the puncture procedure ('indirect'); and whether these possible differences might be evident in different groups of patients or with different levels of experience among those inserting the catheters.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), EMBASE (1966 to 15 January 2013), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 15 January 2013), reference lists of articles, 'grey literature' and dissertations. An additional handsearch focused on intensive care and anaesthesia journals and abstracts and proceedings of scientific meetings. We attempted to identify unpublished or ongoing studies by contacting companies and experts in the field, and we searched trial registers. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.

Selection criteria: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing two-dimensional ultrasound or Doppler ultrasound versus an anatomical 'landmark' technique during insertion of subclavian or femoral venous catheters in both adults and children.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest using a standardized form. We performed a priori subgroup analyses.

Main results: Altogether 13 studies enrolling 2341 participants (and involving 2360 procedures) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was very low (subclavian vein N = 3) or low (subclavian vein N = 4, femoral vein N = 2) for most outcomes, moderate for one outcome (femoral vein) and high at best for two outcomes (subclavian vein N = 1, femoral vein N = 1). Most of the trials had unclear risk of bias across the six domains, and heterogeneity among the studies was significant.For the subclavian vein (nine studies, 2030 participants, 2049 procedures), two-dimensional ultrasound reduced the risk of inadvertent arterial puncture (three trials, 498 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.82; P value 0.02, I² = 0%) and haematoma formation (three trials, 498 participants, RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.76; P value 0.01, I² = 0%). No evidence was found of a difference in total or other complications (together, US, USD), overall (together, US, USD), number of attempts until success (US) or first-time (US) success rates or time taken to insert the catheter (US).For the femoral vein, fewer data were available for analysis (four studies, 311 participants, 311 procedures). No evidence was found of a difference in inadvertent arterial puncture or other complications. However, success on the first attempt was more likely with ultrasound (three trials, 224 participants, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.22; P value < 0.0001, I² = 31%), and a small increase in the overall success rate was noted (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; P value 0.06, I² = 50%). No data on mortality or participant-reported outcomes were provided.

Authors' conclusions: On the basis of available data, we conclude that two-dimensional ultrasound offers small gains in safety and quality when compared with an anatomical landmark technique for subclavian (arterial puncture, haematoma formation) or femoral vein (success on the first attempt) cannulation for central vein catheterization. Data on insertion by inexperienced or experienced users, or on patients at high risk for complications, are lacking. The results for Doppler ultrasound techniques versus anatomical landmark techniques are uncertain.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Patrick Brass: none known.

Martin Hellmich: none known.

Laurentius Kolodziej: none known.

Guido Schick: none known.

Andrew F Smith: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
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.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Traditional landmark vs ultrasound or Doppler guidance for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, outcome: 1.1 Complication rate total.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 1 Complication rate total.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 2 Overall success rate.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 3 Number of attempts until success.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 4 Arterial puncture.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 5 Haematoma formation.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 6 Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 7 Time to successful cannulation.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 8 Success with attempt number 1.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks for femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 1 Overall success rate.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks for femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 2 Arterial puncture.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks for femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 3 Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury).
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks for femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization, Outcome 4 Success with attempt number 1.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

References to studies included in this review

Alic 2009 {published data only}
    1. Alic Y, Torgay A, Pirat A. Ultrasound‐guided catheterization of the subclavian vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in ICU patients. Critical Care. 2009; Vol. 13:S80.
Aouad 2010 {published data only}
    1. Aouad MT, Kanazi GE, Abdallah FW, Moukaddem FH, Turbay MJ, Obeid MY, et al. Femoral vein cannulation performed by residents: a comparison between ultrasound‐guided and landmark technique in infants and children undergoing cardiac surgery. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2010;111(3):724‐8. - PubMed
Bold 1998 {published data only}
    1. Bold RJ, Winchester DJ, Madary AR, Gregurich MA, Mansfield PF. Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler‐assisted subclavian vein catheterization. Archives of Surgery 1998;133(10):1089‐93. - PubMed
Branger 1994 {published data only}
    1. Branger B, Zabadani B, Vecina F, Juan JM, Dauzat M. Continuous guidance for venous punctures using a new pulsed Doppler probe: efficiency, safety [Guidage continu des ponctions veineuses par une nouvelle sonde Doppler pulsee: efficacite, securite]. Nephrologie 1994;15(2):137‐40. - PubMed
Branger 1995 {published data only}
    1. Branger B, Dauzat M, Zabadani B, Vecina F, Lefranc JY. Pulsed Doppler sonography for the guidance of vein puncture: a prospective study. Artificial Organs 1995;19(9):933‐8. - PubMed
Fragou 2011 {published data only}
    1. Fragou M, Gravvanis A, Dimitriou V, Papalois A, Kouraklis G, Karabinis A, et al. Real‐time ultrasound‐guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: a prospective randomized study. Critical Care Medicine 2011;39(7):1607‐12. - PubMed
Gualtieri 1995 {published data only}
    1. Gualtieri E, Deppe SA, Sipperly ME, Thompson DR. Subclavian venous catheterization: greater success rate for less experienced operators using ultrasound guidance. Critical Care Medicine 1995;23(4):692‐7. [PMID: 7661944] - PubMed
Iwashima 2008 {published data only}
    1. Iwashima S, Ishikawa T, Ohzeki T. Ultrasound‐guided versus landmark‐guided femoral vein access in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Pediatric Cardiology 2008;29:339‐42. - PubMed
Kwon 1997 {published data only}
    1. Kwon TH, Kim YL, Cho DK. Ultrasound‐guided cannulation of the femoral vein for acute haemodialysis access. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1997;12(5):1009‐12. - PubMed
Lefrant 1998 {published data only}
    1. Lefrant JY, Cuvillon P, Bénézet JF, Dauzat M, Peray P, Saïssi G, et al. Pulsed Doppler ultrasonography guidance for catheterization of the subclavian vein. Anesthesiology 1998;88(5):1195‐201. - PubMed
Mansfield 1994 {published data only}
    1. Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian‐vein catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;331(26):1735‐8. - PubMed
Palepu 2009 {published data only}
    1. Palepu GB, Deven J, Subrahmanyam M, Mohan S. Impact of ultrasonography on central venous catheter insertion in intensive care. The Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging 2009;19(3):191‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Prabhu 2010 {published data only}
    1. Prabhu MV, Juneja D, Gopal PB, Sathyanarayanan M, Subhramanyam S, Gandhe S, et al. Ultrasound‐guided femoral dialysis access placement: a single‐center randomized trial. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2010;5(2):235‐9. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Froehlich 2009 {published data only}
    1. Froehlich CD, Rigby MR, Rosenberg ES, Li R, Roerig PL, Easley KA, et al. Ultrasound‐guided central venous catheter placement decreases complications and decreases placement attempts compared with the landmark technique in patients in a paediatric intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicone 2009;37(3):1090‐6. - PubMed
Hilty 1997 {published data only}
    1. Hilty WM, Hudson PA, Levitt MA, Hall JB. Real‐time ultrasound guided femoral vein catheterization during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Annals of Ernergency Medicine 1997;29:331‐7. - PubMed
Kwon 1996 {published data only}
    1. Kwon TH, Kim YL, Cho DK. Ultrasound‐guided cannulation of the femoral vein for acute haemodialysis access. Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation 1997;12:1009‐12. - PubMed
Miller 2002 {published data only}
    1. Miller AH, Roth BA, Mills TJ, Woody JR, Longmoor CE, Foster B. Ultrasound guidance versus the landmark technique for the placement of central venous catheters in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine 2002;9(8):800‐5. - PubMed
Thompson 1994 {published data only}
    1. Thompson DR, Gualtieri E, Deppe S, Sipperly ME. Greater success in subclavian vein cannulation using ultrasound for inexperienced operators. Critical Care Medicine 1994;22:A190. - PubMed
Woody 2001 {published data only}
    1. Woody JR, Miller AH, Mills TJ, Roth BA. Using ultrasound for central venous line placement (CVP) in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine 2001;8:580. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Eldabaa 2012 {published data only}
    1. Eldabaa AA, Elgebaly AS, Elhafz AAA, Bassuni AS. Comparison of ultrasound‐guided vs. anatomical landmark‐guided cannulation of the femoral vein at the optimum position in infant. South African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia 2012;18(3):162‐6.
Enany 2013 {published data only}
    1. Enany B, Elsayed M, Elshahed G, Abdelhaleem Z. Ultrasound versus landmark‐guided femoral vein, artery access in pediatric cardiac catheterization. Abstracts view online. www.summit‐tctap.com. 2013.
Lam 2013 {published data only}
    1. Lam KK, Ng HY, Wu CH, Wu MT, Chen JB, Lee CT. Ultrasound localization of the femoral vein facilitates successful cannulation for hemodialysis. Biomedical Journal 2013;36(5):237‐42. [DOI: 10.4103/2319-4170.113193] - DOI - PubMed
Oh 2014 {published data only}
    1. Oh AY, Jeon YT, Choi EJ, Ryu JH, Hwang JW, Park HP, et al. The influence of the direction of J‐tip on the placement of a subclavian catheter: real time ultrasound‐guided cannulation versus landmark method, a randomized controlled trial. BioMed Central Anesthesiology 2014;14(1):11. [DOI: 10.1186/1471-2253-14-11; PUBMED: 24581318] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Xu 2013 {published data only}
    1. Xu JX, Wand HZ, Ren H, Shen YF, Dong J, Li Q. Clinical application of ultrasound guided central venous catheterization via the axillary vein. Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2013;3:163‐7.

Additional references

American College of Emergency Physicians 2007
    1. American College of Emergency Physicians. Emergency ultrasound imaging criteria compendium. file:///C:/Users/JCRA0002/Downloads/Emergency%20Ultrasound%20Imaging%20Criteria%20Compendium%20(2).pdf: accessed November 2013 2006. - PubMed
Atkinson 2005
    1. Atkinson P, Boyle A, Robinson S, Campbell‐Hewson G. Should ultrasound guidance be used for central venous catheterisation in the emergency department?. Emergency Medicine Journal 2005;22:158‐64. [DOI: 10.1136/emj.2003.011288] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Bernard 1971
    1. Bernard RW, Stahl WM. Subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective study. I. Non‐infectious complications. Annals of Surgery 1971;173(2):184‐90. [PUBMED: 5100094] - PMC - PubMed
Bo‐Linn 1982
    1. Bo‐Linn GW, Anderson DJ, Anderson KC, McGoon MD. Percutaneous central venous catheterization performed by medical house officers: a prospective study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis 1982;8(1):23‐9. [PUBMED: 7060113] - PubMed
Bodenham 2006
    1. Bodenham AR. Can you justify not using ultrasound guidance for central venous access?. Critical Care 2006;10(6):175. [PUBMED: 17129362] - PMC - PubMed
Bodenham 2011
    1. Bodenham A. Reducing major procedural complications from central venous catheterisation. Anaesthesia 2011;66:6‐9. [PUBMED: 21198502] - PubMed
Brass 2013a
    1. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Traditional landmark versus ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein catheterization. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in editorial process, Issue in editorial process. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006962] - DOI
Calvert 2003
    1. Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams RG, Thomas SM, Beverley C, Davidson A. The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound locating devices for central venous access: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 2003;7(12):1‐84. [PUBMED: 12709290] - PubMed
Calvert 2004
    1. Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Beverley C, Thomas SM. Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: economic evaluation of cost‐effectiveness. Anaesthesia 2004;59(11):1116‐20. [PUBMED: 15479322] - PubMed
Caridi 1998
    1. Caridi JG, Hawkins IF Jr, Wiechmann BN, Pevarski DJ, Tonkin JC. Sonographic guidance when using the right internal jugular vein for central vein access. American Journal of Roentgenology 1998;171(5):1259‐63. [PUBMED: 9798857] - PubMed
Cook 2011
    1. Cook TM. Litigation related to central venous access by anaesthetists: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995‐2009. Anaesthesia 2011;66:56‐7. [PUBMED: 21198504] - PubMed
Debordeau 2009
    1. Debordeau 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 inpatients with cancer: report from the working group. Annals of Oncology 2009;20(9):1459–71. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdp052; PUBMED: 19525362] - DOI - PubMed
Defalque 1974
    1. Defalque RJ. Percutaneous catheterization of the internal jugular vein. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1974;53(1):116‐21. [PUBMED: 4589503] - PubMed
Denys 1991
    1. Denys BG, Uretsky BF. Anatomical variations of internal jugular vein localisation: impact on central venous access. Critical Care Medicine 1991;42(3):218‐23. [PUBMED: 1959371] - 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 Drug Bull 1989
    1. Food, Drug Administration. Precautions necessary with central venous catheters. FDA Drug Bulletin 1989;July:15‐6.
Feller‐Kopman 2007
    1. Feller‐Kopman D. Ultrasound‐guided internal jugular access: a proposed standardized approach and implications for training and practice. Chest 2007;132(1):302‐9. [PUBMED: 17625091] - PubMed
Ferral 1998
    1. Ferral H. US‐guided puncture of the internal jugular vein: an unexpected anatomic relationship. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 1998;9(5):854‐5. [PUBMED: 9756083] - PubMed
French 2008
    1. French J, Raine‐Fenning N, Hardmann J. Pitfalls of ultrasound guided vascular access: the use of three/four‐dimensional ultrasound. Anaesthesia 2008;63:806–13. - PubMed
Ge 2012
    1. Ge X, Cavallazzi R, Li C, Pan SM, Wang YW, Wang FL. Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004084.pub3; PUBMED: 22419292] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Gilbert 1995
    1. Gilbert TB, Seneff MG, Becker RB. Facilitation of internal jugular venous cannulation using an audio‐guided Doppler ultrasound vascular access device: results from a prospective, dual‐center, randomized, crossover clinical study. Critical Care Medicine 1995;23(1):60‐5. [PUBMED: 8001387] - PubMed
Glasziou 2001
    1. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide. 1st Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. [NLM ID: 101133142]
Goodwin 2005
    1. Goodwin D, Pope C, Mort M, Smith AF. Access, boundaries and their effects: legitimate participation in anaesthesia. Sociology of Health and Illness 2005;27:855‐71. [PUBMED: 16283902] - PubMed
Guimares 2009
    1. Guimaraes MM, Dib R, Smith AF, Matos D. Incentive spirometry for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications in upper abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006058.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. [PUBMED: 12958120] - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Altman DG editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hind 2003
    1. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta‐analysis. BMJ 2003;327(7411):361. [PUBMED: 12919984] - PMC - PubMed
Howard 2007
    1. Howard S. A survey measuring the impact of NICE guidance 49: the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/Final_CVC_placement_survey_report.pdf (accessed 4 June 2007).
Joffe 2009
    1. Joffe A, Anton N, Lequier L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Larsen B, et al. Nutritional support for critically ill children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005144.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Johnson 1994
    1. Johnson PF. Central venous catheter placement and complications. Critical Care Medicine 1994;22(9):1515‐6. [PUBMED: 7980790] - PubMed
Keenan 2002
    1. Keenan SP. Use of ultrasound to place central lines. Journal of Critical Care 2002;17(2):126‐37. [PUBMED: 12096376] - PubMed
Kinsella 2009
    1. Kinsella S, Young N. Ultrasound‐guided central line placement as compared with standard landmark technique: some unpleasant arithmetic for the economics of medical innovation. Value Health 2009;12(1):98‐100. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00427.x; PUBMED: 18647249] - DOI - PubMed
Lamperti 2012
    1. Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M, Blaivas M, Augoustides JG, Elbarbary M, et al. International evidence‐based recommendations on ultrasound‐guided vascular access. Intensive Care Medicine 2012;38(7):1105‐17. [DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2597-x; PUBMED: 22614241] - DOI - PubMed
Lau 1998
    1. Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. In: Mulrow C, Cook D editor(s). Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Healthcare Decisions. 1st Edition. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1998:91‐101.
Legler 1984
    1. Legler D, Nugent M. Doppler localization of the internal jugular vein facilitates its cannulation. Anesthesiology 1984;59:A 179. - PubMed
Light 1984
    1. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984. [NLM ID: 8505340]
McIntyre 1992
    1. McIntyre AS, Levison RA, Wood S, Phillips RK, Lennard‐Jones JE. Duplex Doppler ultrasound identifies veins suitable for insertion of central feeding catheters. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1992;16(3):264‐7. [PUBMED: 1501358] - PubMed
Merrer 2001
    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
Mort 2009
    1. Mort M, Smith AF. Beyond Information: intimate relations in sociotechnical practice. Sociology 2009;43:215‐31. [DOI: 10.1177/0038038508101162] - DOI
Muhm 2002
    1. Muhm M. Ultrasound guided central venous access. BMJ 2002;325(7377):1373‐4. [PUBMED: 12480829] - PMC - PubMed
NICE 2002
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Appraisal Committee Members. Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. Technology Appraisal No. 49 September 2002;49:1‐24.
Peters 1982
    1. Peters JL, Belsham PA, Garrett CP, Kurzer M. Doppler ultrasound technique for safer percutaneous catheterization of the infraclavicular subclavian vein. American Journal of Surgery 1982;143(3):391‐3. [PUBMED: 7065360] - PubMed
Pikwer 2012
    1. Pikwer A, Åkeson J, Lindgren S. Complications associated with peripheral or central routes for central venous cannulation. Anaesthesia 2012;67:65‐71. [PUBMED: 19370617] - PubMed
Polderman 2002
    1. Polderman KH, Girbes ARJ. Central venous catheter use. Part 1: mechanical complications. Intensive Care Medicine 2002;28(1):1‐17. [PUBMED: 11818994] - PubMed
Rajaram 2013
    1. Rajaram SS, Desai NK, Kalra A, Gajera M, Cavanaugh SK, Brampton W, et al. Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003408.pub3; PUBMED: 23450539] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Randolph 1996
    1. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta‐analysis of the literature. Critical Care Medicine 1996;24(12):2053‐8. [PUBMED: 8968276] - PubMed
Resnick 2008
    1. Resnick JR, Cydulka RK, Donato J. Success of ultrasound‐guided peripheral intravenous access with skin marking. Academic Emergency Medicine 2008;15(8):723‐30. [PUBMED: 18637084] - PubMed
RevMan 5.2 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, November 8, 2012.
Rothschild 2001
    1. Rothschild JM. Ultrasound guidance of central vein catheterization. In: Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Markowitz AJ editor(s). Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Vol. 43, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001:244‐52. [AHRQ Publication No. 01‐E058]
Rupp 2012
    1. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access, Rupp SM, Apfelbaum JL, Blitt C, Caplan RA, Connis RT, Domino KB, et al. Practice guidelines for central venous access: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology 2012;116(3):539‐73. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31823c9569; PUBMED: 22307320] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 2004
    1. Scott DHT. Editorial II: the king of the blind extends his frontiers. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2004;93:175‐7. [DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeh183] - DOI - PubMed
Shojania 2001
    1. Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Markowitz AJ. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. 2001;43(i‐x):1‐668. [PUBMED: 11510252] - PMC - PubMed
Smith 1997
    1. Smith AF, Vallance H, Slater RM. Shorter fluid fasts reduce postoperative emesis. BMJ 1997;314:1486. [PUBMED: 9167597] - PMC - PubMed
Smith 2009
    1. Smith AF. In search of excellence in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 2009;110:4‐5. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318190b263] - DOI - PubMed
Smith 2010
    1. Smith AF, Greaves JD. Beyond competence: defining and promoting excellence in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2010;65:184‐91. [PUBMED: 20003114] - PubMed
Smith 2011
    1. Smith AF, Glavin R, Greaves JD. Defining excellence in anaesthesia: the role of personal qualities and practice environment. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011;106:38‐43. [PUBMED: 21118845] - PubMed
Sznajder 1986
    1. Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization. Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986;146(2):259‐61. [PUBMED: 3947185] - PubMed
Troianos 2012
    1. Troianos CA, Hartman GS, Glas KE, Skubas NJ, Eberhardt RT, Walker JD, et al. Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2012;114(1):46‐72. [DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182407cd8; PUBMED: 22127816] - DOI - PubMed
van Miert 2012
    1. Miert C, Hill R, Jones L. Interventions for restoring patency of occluded central venous catheter lumens. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007119.pub2; PUBMED: 22513946] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Verghese 1995
    1. Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE. Approaches to internal jugular vein cannulation in infants: seeing, hearing vs. feeling. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1995;80:S525.
Verghese 2000
    1. Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE. Comparison of three techniques for internal jugular vein cannulation in infants. Paediatric Anaesthesia 2000;10(5):505‐11. [PUBMED: 11012954] - PubMed
Watters 2002
    1. Watters MP. Where is the harm in using ultrasound guidance?. BMJ; http://www.bmj.com/rapid‐response/2011/10/29/where‐harm‐using‐ultrasound... accessed November 2013 2002.
Wu 2013
    1. Wu SY, Ling Q, Cao LH, Wang J, Xu MX, Zeng WA. Real‐time two‐dimensional ultrasound guidance for central venous cannulation: a meta‐analysis. Anesthesiology 2013;118(2):361‐75. [DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827bd172; PUBMED: 23249991] - DOI - PubMed
Yonei 1986
    1. Yonei A, Nonoue T, Sari A. Real‐time ultrasonic guidance for percutaneous puncture of the internal jugular vein. Anesthesiology 1986;64(6):830‐1. [PUBMED: 3717653] - PubMed
Yonei 1988
    1. Yonei A, Yokota K, Yamashita S, Sari A. Ultrasound‐guided catheterization of the subclavian vein. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 1988;16(7):499‐501. [PUBMED: 3152446] - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Brass 2008
    1. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Kullmer B, Schick G, Schregel W. Traditional landmark versus ultrasound guidance for central vein catheterization. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006962] - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources