NICE guidelines for central venous catheterization in children. Is the evidence base sufficient?

NICE guidelines for central venous catheterization in children. Is the evidence base sufficient?

Recent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend the use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization in children. This study prospectively examined the use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization in children undergoing heart surge...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of anaesthesia : BJA 2004-06, Vol.92 (6), p.827-830
Hauptverfasser: Grebenik, C.R., Boyce, A., Sinclair, M.E., Evans, R.D., Mason, D.G., Martin, B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Anesthesia
Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy
Biological and medical sciences
cannulation
Carotid Artery Injuries - etiology
Carotid Artery Injuries - prevention & control
Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects
Catheterization, Central Venous - methods
Child
Child, Preschool
equipment, ultrasound devices
Evidence-Based Medicine
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
jugular
Jugular Veins - diagnostic imaging
Medical sciences
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Prospective Studies
Ultrasonography, Interventional
ultrasound devices
veins
veins, jugular, cannulation
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Recent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommend the use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization in children. This study prospectively examined the use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheterization in children undergoing heart surgery. One hundred and twenty‐four infants and children were randomized to either ultrasound‐guided or traditional landmark‐guided central venous catheterization. Success rates were significantly greater in the landmark group compared with the ultrasound group (89.3% vs 78%, P
ISSN:0007-0912
1471-6771
DOI:10.1093/bja/aeh134