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
. 2014 Dec;3(4):e23204.
doi: 10.17795/nmsjournal23204. Epub 2014 Dec 29.

Success rate and complications of internal jugular vein catheterization with and without ultrasonography guide

Affiliations

Success rate and complications of internal jugular vein catheterization with and without ultrasonography guide

Hamidreza Karimi-Sari et al. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is an important procedure in emergency departments (EDs). Despite existence of ultrasonography (US) devices in every ED, CVC is done using anatomical landmarks in many EDs in Iran.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the traditional landmark method vs. US-guided method of CVC placement in terms of complications and success rate.

Patients and methods: In this randomized controlled trial, patients who were candidate for internal jugular vein catheterization, and referred to Baqiyatallah Hospital ED were randomly allocated into US-guided CVC and anatomical landmarks guided CVC groups. Central vein access time, number of attempts, success rate, and complications in each group were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U, chi-square and Fisher exact tests along with Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to analyze the data.

Results: Out of 100 patients, 56 were male and 44 were female. No significant differences were found between the US-guided and traditional landmark methods of CVC insertion in terms of age, gender, BMI, and site of catheter insertion. The mean access time was significantly lower in the US-guided group (37.12 ± 17.33 s vs. 63.42 ± 35.19 s, P < 0.001). The mean number of attempts was also significantly lower in the US-guided group (1.12 ± 0.3 vs. 1.58 ± 0.64 times, P < 0.001). Eighty-eight percent of patients in the US-guided group were catheterized in the first attempt, while 50% of patients in the traditional landmark group were catheterized in the second or more attempts (P < 0.001). The success rate was 100% in the US-guided group, while it was 88% in the landmark group (P = 0.013). Moreover, the rate of complications was significantly lower in the US-guided group (4% vs. 24%, P = 0.004).

Conclusions: The US-guided method for CVC placement was superior to the traditional landmark method in terms of access time, number of attempts, success rate, and fewer complications.

Keywords: Central Venous Catheterization; Jugular Vein; Ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Study Flow Chart

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327(7411):361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Salwender HJ, Egerer G, Bach A, Hahn U, Goldschmidt H, Ho AD. Central venous catheter-related complications. Antibiot Chemother (1971). 2000;50:133–43. - PubMed
    1. Mahieu LM, Buitenweg N, Beutels P, De Dooy JJ. Additional hospital stay and charges due to hospital-acquired infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47(3):223–9. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2000.0852. - DOI - PubMed
    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. Arch Surg. 2001;136(2):229–34. - PubMed
    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. Crit Care. 2005;9(6):R631–5. doi: 10.1186/cc3824. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources