Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance as Compared With Landmark Technique for Subclavian Central Venous Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis*

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of real-time dynamic ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation as compared to landmark technique in adult patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE until June 1, 2022, with the EMBASE search restricted to the last 5 years. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques (real-time ultrasound-guided vs landmark) for subclavian vein cannulation. The primary outcomes were overall success rate and complication rate, whereas secondary outcomes included success at first attempt, number of attempts, and access time. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent extraction by two authors according to prespecified criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: After screening, six RCTs were included. Two further RCTs using a static ultrasound-guided approach and one prospective study were included in the sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in the form of risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Real-time ultrasound guidance increased the overall success rate for subclavian vein cannulation as compared to landmark technique (RR = 1.14; [95% CI 1.06–1.23]; p = 0.0007; I2 = 55%; low certainty) and complication rates (RR = 0.32; [95% CI 0.22–0.47]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Furthermore, ultrasound guidance increased the success rate at first attempt (RR = 1.32; [95% CI 1.14–1.54]; p = 0.0003; I2 = 0%; low certainty), reduced the total number of attempts (MD = –0.45 [95% CI –0.57 to –0.34]; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and access time (MD = –10.14 s; [95% CI –17.34 to –2.94]; p = 0.006; I2 = 77%; low certainty). The Trial Sequential Analyses on the investigated outcomes showed that the results were robust. The evidence for all outcomes was considered to be of low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation is safer and more efficient than a landmark approach. The findings seem robust although the evidence of low certainty.

[1]  C. Campbell,et al.  Ultrasound-Guided vs. Landmark Method for Subclavian Vein Catheterization in an Academic Emergency Department. , 2022, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[2]  J. Malik,et al.  Success Rate and Complications of the Supraclavicular Approach for Central Venous Access: A Systematic Review , 2022, Cureus.

[3]  Mi-Yeon Kim,et al.  Supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach for ultrasound‐guided right subclavian venous catheterisation: a randomised controlled non‐inferiority trial , 2021, Anaesthesia.

[4]  J. Schulz,et al.  Komplikationen und Erfolgsraten des Vena-subclavia-Katheters in Abhängigkeit der Erfahrung , 2020, Der Anaesthesist.

[5]  Li Yan,et al.  Comparison of comfort and complications in breast cancer patients of implantable venous access port (IVAP) with ultrasound guided internal jugular vein (IJV) and axillary vein/subclavian vein (AxV/SCV) puncture: a randomized controlled study protocol. , 2020, Annals of palliative medicine.

[6]  Jiming Cai,et al.  Static Ultrasound Guidance VS. Anatomical Landmarks for Subclavian Vein Puncture in the Intensive Care Unit: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study. , 2020, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[7]  B. Souweine,et al.  Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit , 2020, Annals of Intensive Care.

[8]  Alexander J. White,et al.  Training and Accreditation Pathways in Critical Care and Perioperative Echocardiography. , 2020, Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia.

[9]  L. Forni,et al.  Recommendations for core critical care ultrasound competencies as a part of specialist training in multidisciplinary intensive care: a framework proposed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) , 2020, Critical Care.

[10]  Natalie S Blencowe,et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2019, BMJ.

[11]  F. Forfori,et al.  Ultrasound- versus landmark-guided subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective observational study from a tertiary referral hospital , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[12]  A. Wong,et al.  Critical Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review of International Training Competencies and Program , 2019, Critical care medicine.

[13]  Darko Sazdov,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Ultrasound Guided Central Venous Catheterization Compared to Blind Catheterization , 2017, Prilozi.

[14]  Pavel S. Roshanov,et al.  Association of Postoperative High-Sensitivity Troponin Levels With Myocardial Injury and 30-Day Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery , 2017, JAMA.

[15]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[16]  A. Bodenham,et al.  Ultrasound guided infraclavicular axillary vein cannulation, coming of age. , 2016, British journal of anaesthesia.

[17]  Pierre Kalfon,et al.  Intravascular Complications of Central Venous Catheterization by Insertion Site. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  M. Lalu,et al.  Ultrasound-Guided Subclavian Vein Catheterization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2015, Critical care medicine.

[19]  Tiejun Tong,et al.  Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range , 2015, Statistical methods in medical research.

[20]  J. Wetterslev,et al.  When may systematic reviews and meta-analyses be considered reliable? , 2015, European journal of anaesthesiology.

[21]  L. Sahin,et al.  Comparison of an ultrasound-guided technique versus a landmark-guided technique for internal jugular vein cannulation , 2015, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing.

[22]  M. Hellmich,et al.  Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  Jiming Liu,et al.  Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[24]  Y. Jeon,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 , 2014, BMC Anesthesiology.

[25]  G. Choukroun,et al.  Residents learning ultrasound-guided catheterization are not sufficiently skilled to use landmarks , 2014, Critical Care.

[26]  M. Elbarbary,et al.  Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. , 2013, British journal of anaesthesia.

[27]  P. Marik,et al.  The risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with femoral venous catheters as compared to subclavian and internal jugular venous catheters: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis* , 2012, Critical care medicine.

[28]  R. Cavallazzi,et al.  Central venous access sites for the prevention of venous thrombosis, stenosis and infection. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[29]  G. Kouraklis,et al.  Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: A prospective randomized study* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[30]  Susanna Price,et al.  International expert statement on training standards for critical care ultrasonography , 2011, Intensive Care Medicine.

[31]  C. Iacovazzo,et al.  The real effectiveness of ultrasound guidance in subclavian venous access. , 2010, Annali italiani di chirurgia.

[32]  Frank LoVecchio,et al.  Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter placement: results from the Central Line Emergency Access Registry Database. , 2010, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[33]  S. Mohan,et al.  Impact of ultrasonography on central venous catheter insertion in intensive care , 2009, The Indian journal of radiology & imaging.

[34]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  A. Pirat,et al.  Ultrasound-guided catheterization of the subclavian vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in ICU patients , 2009, Critical Care.

[36]  Charles J Bruce,et al.  Guidelines for Performing a Comprehensive Transesophageal Echocardiographic Examination: Recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists , 2007, Anesthesia and Analgesia.

[37]  Theodore J. Gaeta,et al.  Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial* , 2005, Critical care medicine.

[38]  G. Janvier,et al.  Apprentissage du catheterisme de la veine sous-claviere chez l adulte : apport de l assistance echographique en temps reel , 2002 .

[39]  F Golliot,et al.  Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. , 2001, JAMA.

[40]  F. Midgley,et al.  Ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous cannulation in infants: a prospective comparison with the traditional palpation method. , 1999, Anesthesiology.

[41]  D. Winchester,et al.  Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler-assisted subclavian vein catheterization. , 1998, Archives of surgery.

[42]  J. Eledjam,et al.  Pulsed Doppler Ultrasonography Guidance for Catheterization of the Subclavian Vein: A Randomized Study , 1998, Anesthesiology.

[43]  M. Safar,et al.  Improvement of internal jugular vein cannulation using an ultrasound-guided technique , 1997, Intensive Care Medicine.

[44]  B. Branger,et al.  Pulsed Doppler sonography for the guidance of vein puncture: a prospective study. , 1995, Artificial organs.

[45]  D. R. Thompson,et al.  Subclavian venous catheterization: greater success rate for less experienced operators using ultrasound guidance. , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[46]  P. S. Reddy,et al.  Ultrasound‐Assisted Cannulation of the Internal Jugular Vein A Prospective Comparison to the External Landmark‐Guided Technique , 1993, Circulation.

[47]  N. Ellison,et al.  Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein. A prospective, randomized study. , 1991, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[48]  K. Bailey,et al.  Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of internal jugular vein cannulation. A prospective, randomized trial. , 1990, Chest.

[49]  Haim Bitterman,et al.  Central vein catheterization. Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. , 1986, Archives of internal medicine.

[50]  Yutaka Seino,et al.  [Safety of axillary and subclavian vein cannulation using real-time ultrasound guidance]. , 2014, Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology.

[51]  Sanjay Saint,et al.  Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. , 2011, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[52]  C. Eynon,et al.  Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[53]  B. Branger,et al.  [Continuous guidance for venous punctures using a new pulsed Doppler probe: efficiency, safety]. , 1994, Nephrologie.

[54]  L. Fares,et al.  Improved house staff results with subclavian cannulation. , 1986, The American surgeon.

[55]  F. Sanfilippo,et al.  TRIAL SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS: THE EVALUATION OF THE ROBUSTNESS OF META-ANALYSES FINDINGS AND THE NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH , 2022 .