Hind Daniel, Calvert Neill, McWilliams Richard, Davidson Andrew, Paisley Suzy, Beverley Catherine, Thomas Steven
School of Health and Related Research, Regent Court, Sheffield S1 4DA.
BMJ. 2003 Aug 16;327(7411):361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361.
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.
评估超声引导下中心静脉置管临床有效性的证据。
15个电子文献数据库,涵盖生物医学、科学、社会科学、卫生经济学及灰色文献。
对随机对照试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析。研究对象为计划进行中心静脉通路置管的患者。干预措施:将实时二维超声或多普勒针与探头引导与解剖标志法置管进行比较。
导管置入失败风险(主要结局)、置管并发症风险、首次置管失败风险、成功置管的尝试次数以及成功置管所需时间(秒)。
共纳入18项试验(1646名参与者)。与解剖标志法相比,成人颈内静脉置管采用实时二维超声引导时,总体失败率(相对危险度0.14,95%置信区间0.06至0.33)及首次尝试置管失败率(0.59,0.39至0.88)均显著降低。有限证据表明,成人锁骨下静脉和股静脉置管采用二维超声引导更具优势(分别为0.14,0.04至0.57和0.29,0.07至1.21)。三项针对婴儿的研究证实,二维超声引导颈内静脉置管成功率更高(0.15,0.03至0.64)。成人颈内静脉多普勒引导置管比解剖标志法更成功(0.39,0.17至0.92),但解剖标志法用于锁骨下静脉置管更成功(1.48,1.03至2.14)。婴儿颈内静脉置管的这些技术之间未发现显著差异。相对危险度的间接比较表明,成人锁骨下静脉置管二维超声引导比多普勒引导更成功(0.09,0.02至0.38)。
有证据支持二维超声用于中心静脉置管。