19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison between the long-axis/in-plane and short-axis/out-of-plane approaches for ultrasound-guided vascular catheterization: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) approach and a short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) approach are the two main approaches used in ultrasound (US)-guided vascular catheterization. However, the efficacy and safety of these approaches remain controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the two techniques in vascular catheterization.

          Materials and methods

          Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until August 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing a long-axis approach with a short-axis approach for US-guided vascular cannulation were selected. The RevMan software was used to analyze the results, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was further applied to determine whether the currently available evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

          Results

          Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1,210 patients were included. The total success rate was similar between the SA-OOP and LA-IP approaches for US-guided vascular catheterization (risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99–1.04; P=0.35; I 2=48%). In the radial artery (RA; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96–1.05; P=0.88; I 2=49%) and internal jugular vein (IJV; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02; P=0.99; I 2=0%) subgroups, the total success rate was also similar and was confirmed by the TSA. For populations with subclavian vein (SCV) and axillary vein catheterization, the SA-OOP approach showed a benefit for first-attempt success rate. No significant differences in first-attempt success rate, cannulation times, or complications were found between the two approaches.

          Conclusion

          Despite a similar total success rate between the SA-OOP approach and the LA-IP approach when used for RA and IJV catheterization (as confirmed by TSA), further robust well-designed trials are warranted to evaluate other outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to definitively state that the SA-OOP approach was superior to the LA-IP approach when used for SCV and axillary vein catheterization. High-quality trials are needed to confirm or refute this finding.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis.

          To assess the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound guided central venous cannulation. 15 electronic bibliographic databases, covering biomedical, science, social science, health economics, and grey literature. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Populations Patients scheduled for central venous access. INTERVENTION REVIEWED: Guidance using real time two dimensional ultrasonography or Doppler needles and probes compared with the anatomical landmark method of cannulation. Risk of failed catheter placement (primary outcome), risk of complications from placement, risk of failure on first attempt at placement, number of attempts to successful catheterisation, and time (seconds) to successful catheterisation. 18 trials (1646 participants) were identified. Compared with the landmark method, real time two dimensional ultrasound guidance for cannulating the internal jugular vein in adults was associated with a significantly lower failure rate both overall (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.33) and on the first attempt (0.59, 0.39 to 0.88). Limited evidence favoured two dimensional ultrasound guidance for subclavian vein and femoral vein procedures in adults (0.14, 0.04 to 0.57 and 0.29, 0.07 to 1.21, respectively). Three studies in infants confirmed a higher success rate with two dimensional ultrasonography for internal jugular procedures (0.15, 0.03 to 0.64). Doppler guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein in adults was more successful than the landmark method (0.39, 0.17 to 0.92), but the landmark method was more successful for subclavian vein procedures (1.48, 1.03 to 2.14). No significant difference was found between these techniques for cannulation of the internal jugular vein in infants. An indirect comparison of relative risks suggested that two dimensional ultrasonography would be more successful than Doppler guidance for subclavian vein procedures in adults (0.09, 0.02 to 0.38). Evidence supports the use of two dimensional ultrasonography for central venous cannulation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature.

            To evaluate the effect of real-time ultrasound guidance using a regular or Doppler ultrasound technique for placement of central venous catheters. We searched for published and unpublished research using MEDLINE, citation review of relevant primary and review articles, conference abstracts, personal files, and contact with expert informants. From a pool of 208 randomized, controlled trials of venous and arterial catheter management, eight published randomized, controlled trials were identified. In duplicate, independently, we abstracted data on the population, intervention, outcome, and methodologic quality. Ultrasound guidance significantly decreases internal jugular and subclavian catheter placement failure (relative risk 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.55), decreases complications during catheter placement (relative risk 0.22; 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.45), and decreases the need for multiple catheter placement attempts (relative risk 0.60; 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.79) when compared with the standard landmark placement technique. When used for vessel location and catheter placement real-time, ultrasound guidance or Doppler ultrasound guidance improves success rates and decreases the complications associated with internal jugular and subclavian venous catheter placement.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ultrasound-Guided Subclavian Vein Catheterization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

              Although ultrasound guidance for subclavian vein catheterization has been well described, evidence for its use has not been comprehensively appraised. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ultrasound guidance of subclavian vein catheterization reduces catheterization failures and adverse events compared to the traditional "blind" landmark method. All forms of ultrasound were included (dynamic 2D ultrasound, static 2D ultrasound, and Doppler).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                2018
                20 February 2018
                : 14
                : 331-340
                Affiliations
                Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Feihu Zhou, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Kidney Diseases, 28 Fu-Xing Road, Beijing 100853, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 10 6693 8148, Fax +86 10 8821 9862, Email feihuzhou301@ 123456126.com
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                tcrm-14-331
                10.2147/TCRM.S152908
                5824754
                © 2018 Liu et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article