Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies. Randomized contro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 2019-11, Vol.33 (11), p.2979-2984
Hauptverfasser: Takeshita, Jun, Nishiyama, Kei, Fukumoto, Atsushi, Shime, Nobuaki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2984
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2979
container_title Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
container_volume 33
creator Takeshita, Jun
Nishiyama, Kei
Fukumoto, Atsushi
Shime, Nobuaki
description The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies. Randomized controlled study. Single tertiary institution. One hundred twenty patients who underwent cardiac or vascular surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were divided randomly into combined short-axis-and-long-axis (n = 40), short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) (n = 40), and long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) (n = 40) groups and received ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization at the right internal jugular vein. Successful guidewire insertion without posterior wall puncture was performed in 40 patients (100%) in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach group, 28 (70%) in the short-axis out-of-plane approach group, and 38 (95%) in the LA-IP approach group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.0002 [relative risk = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.75]; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.49 [relative risk = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.13]). Procedure durations were 28.5 (24.1-36.4) seconds in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis group, 31.7 (24.4-40.6) seconds in the SA-OOP group, and 24.3 (20.8-32.1) seconds in the long-axis in-plane group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.53; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.044). The combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization had a lower posterior wall puncture rate than the SA-OOP approach, but there was no significant difference with the long-axis in-plane approach.
doi_str_mv 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231908827</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053077019303118</els_id><sourcerecordid>2231908827</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-603b056a62080c0c2421c91effa9206c17637cf402c775b0210c9e486ab772a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVoadK0fyCH4mMvdkfS2rJLL4tJk0CgULa5ClkeEy22tJXshebe_50xm-bY0wzM9x7zHmNXHAoOpfyyL_ZHawoBvClAFlDyM3bBSynyeiPEG9qJykEpOGfvU9oDcF6W6h07lxxUJUFdsL9tmDrnsc-2h0MMxj5mDxjTkjKRtcEf0c8ueDO-njFlzme_xjmaFBbf5zeL60neEhmJe0AfSN2a-RFnjO7JrAZfs2320_g-TO5phQPBYRxp3UVnxg_s7WDGhB9f5iXbfb_etbf5_Y-bu3Z7n1sKNOcVyA7KylQCarBgxUZw23AcBtMIqCynUMoOGxBWqbIDwcE2uKkr0ykljLxkn0-2FOX3gmnWk0sWx9F4pKe1EJI3UNdCESpOqI0hpYiDPkQ3mfhHc9Brr3qv1_b12r4Gqal9En168V-6CftXyb-6Cfh2ApBCHh1GnaxDb7F3Ee2s--D-5_8MxGSW0g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2231908827</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Takeshita, Jun ; Nishiyama, Kei ; Fukumoto, Atsushi ; Shime, Nobuaki</creator><creatorcontrib>Takeshita, Jun ; Nishiyama, Kei ; Fukumoto, Atsushi ; Shime, Nobuaki</creatorcontrib><description>The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies. Randomized controlled study. Single tertiary institution. One hundred twenty patients who underwent cardiac or vascular surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were divided randomly into combined short-axis-and-long-axis (n = 40), short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) (n = 40), and long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) (n = 40) groups and received ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization at the right internal jugular vein. Successful guidewire insertion without posterior wall puncture was performed in 40 patients (100%) in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach group, 28 (70%) in the short-axis out-of-plane approach group, and 38 (95%) in the LA-IP approach group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.0002 [relative risk = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.75]; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.49 [relative risk = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.13]). Procedure durations were 28.5 (24.1-36.4) seconds in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis group, 31.7 (24.4-40.6) seconds in the SA-OOP group, and 24.3 (20.8-32.1) seconds in the long-axis in-plane group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.53; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.044). The combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization had a lower posterior wall puncture rate than the SA-OOP approach, but there was no significant difference with the long-axis in-plane approach.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-0770</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8422</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.051</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31076307</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>central venous catheterization ; jugular vein ; prospective study ; ultrasonography</subject><ispartof>Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia, 2019-11, Vol.33 (11), p.2979-2984</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-603b056a62080c0c2421c91effa9206c17637cf402c775b0210c9e486ab772a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-603b056a62080c0c2421c91effa9206c17637cf402c775b0210c9e486ab772a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053077019303118$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31076307$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Takeshita, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fukumoto, Atsushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shime, Nobuaki</creatorcontrib><title>Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><title>Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia</title><addtitle>J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth</addtitle><description>The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies. Randomized controlled study. Single tertiary institution. One hundred twenty patients who underwent cardiac or vascular surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were divided randomly into combined short-axis-and-long-axis (n = 40), short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) (n = 40), and long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) (n = 40) groups and received ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization at the right internal jugular vein. Successful guidewire insertion without posterior wall puncture was performed in 40 patients (100%) in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach group, 28 (70%) in the short-axis out-of-plane approach group, and 38 (95%) in the LA-IP approach group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.0002 [relative risk = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.75]; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.49 [relative risk = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.13]). Procedure durations were 28.5 (24.1-36.4) seconds in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis group, 31.7 (24.4-40.6) seconds in the SA-OOP group, and 24.3 (20.8-32.1) seconds in the long-axis in-plane group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.53; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.044). The combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization had a lower posterior wall puncture rate than the SA-OOP approach, but there was no significant difference with the long-axis in-plane approach.</description><subject>central venous catheterization</subject><subject>jugular vein</subject><subject>prospective study</subject><subject>ultrasonography</subject><issn>1053-0770</issn><issn>1532-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVoadK0fyCH4mMvdkfS2rJLL4tJk0CgULa5ClkeEy22tJXshebe_50xm-bY0wzM9x7zHmNXHAoOpfyyL_ZHawoBvClAFlDyM3bBSynyeiPEG9qJykEpOGfvU9oDcF6W6h07lxxUJUFdsL9tmDrnsc-2h0MMxj5mDxjTkjKRtcEf0c8ueDO-njFlzme_xjmaFBbf5zeL60neEhmJe0AfSN2a-RFnjO7JrAZfs2320_g-TO5phQPBYRxp3UVnxg_s7WDGhB9f5iXbfb_etbf5_Y-bu3Z7n1sKNOcVyA7KylQCarBgxUZw23AcBtMIqCynUMoOGxBWqbIDwcE2uKkr0ykljLxkn0-2FOX3gmnWk0sWx9F4pKe1EJI3UNdCESpOqI0hpYiDPkQ3mfhHc9Brr3qv1_b12r4Gqal9En168V-6CftXyb-6Cfh2ApBCHh1GnaxDb7F3Ee2s--D-5_8MxGSW0g</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>Takeshita, Jun</creator><creator>Nishiyama, Kei</creator><creator>Fukumoto, Atsushi</creator><creator>Shime, Nobuaki</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial</title><author>Takeshita, Jun ; Nishiyama, Kei ; Fukumoto, Atsushi ; Shime, Nobuaki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-603b056a62080c0c2421c91effa9206c17637cf402c775b0210c9e486ab772a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>central venous catheterization</topic><topic>jugular vein</topic><topic>prospective study</topic><topic>ultrasonography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Takeshita, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nishiyama, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fukumoto, Atsushi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shime, Nobuaki</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Takeshita, Jun</au><au>Nishiyama, Kei</au><au>Fukumoto, Atsushi</au><au>Shime, Nobuaki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth</addtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2979</spage><epage>2984</epage><pages>2979-2984</pages><issn>1053-0770</issn><eissn>1532-8422</eissn><abstract>The authors compared the occurrence of posterior wall puncture using the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches with that using the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach that the authors previously showed to be effective in observational and manikin studies. Randomized controlled study. Single tertiary institution. One hundred twenty patients who underwent cardiac or vascular surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were divided randomly into combined short-axis-and-long-axis (n = 40), short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) (n = 40), and long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) (n = 40) groups and received ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization at the right internal jugular vein. Successful guidewire insertion without posterior wall puncture was performed in 40 patients (100%) in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach group, 28 (70%) in the short-axis out-of-plane approach group, and 38 (95%) in the LA-IP approach group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.0002 [relative risk = 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.75]; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.49 [relative risk = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.13]). Procedure durations were 28.5 (24.1-36.4) seconds in the combined short-axis-and-long-axis group, 31.7 (24.4-40.6) seconds in the SA-OOP group, and 24.3 (20.8-32.1) seconds in the long-axis in-plane group (combined short-axis-and-long-axis v SA-OOP, p = 0.53; combined short-axis-and-long-axis v LA-IP, p = 0.044). The combined short-axis-and-long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization had a lower posterior wall puncture rate than the SA-OOP approach, but there was no significant difference with the long-axis in-plane approach.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31076307</pmid><doi>10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.051</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-0770
ispartof Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia, 2019-11, Vol.33 (11), p.2979-2984
issn 1053-0770
1532-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2231908827
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects central venous catheterization
jugular vein
prospective study
ultrasonography
title Combined Approach Versus 2 Conventional Approaches in Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T14%3A10%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Combined%20Approach%20Versus%202%20Conventional%20Approaches%20in%20Ultrasound-Guided%20Central%20Venous%20Catheterization:%20A%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cardiothoracic%20and%20vascular%20anesthesia&rft.au=Takeshita,%20Jun&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2979&rft.epage=2984&rft.pages=2979-2984&rft.issn=1053-0770&rft.eissn=1532-8422&rft_id=info:doi/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.051&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2231908827%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2231908827&rft_id=info:pmid/31076307&rft_els_id=S1053077019303118&rfr_iscdi=true