Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iuliu Haţieganu, Emergency Hospital Octavian Fodor, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 Mar;27(3):300-3. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328333c2d6.
The insertion of central venous catheters via the external jugular vein (EJV) is not always practical because of the relatively frequent failure rate; thus, the internal jugular approach is generally used. Data from the literature suggest that ultrasound-guided catheterization of the internal jugular vein is superior to the surface anatomy landmark technique and, therefore, should be the method of choice. We evaluated the value of ultrasound guidance in the learning process of central venous cannulation via EJV by similarly inexperienced trainees.
In this prospective randomized study, 60 patients were assigned to two groups: group SA (surface anatomy; n = 30) underwent insertion of the central venous catheter using landmark guidance and group US (ultrasound; n = 30) underwent insertion using ultrasound guidance. In all patients, catheter insertion through the right EJV was performed by trainees in their second year of training. Ultrasound guidance was carried out by the same ultrasound specialist. The following parameters were evaluated in all patients: the number of successful punctures of the right EJV, the total number of attempts and the time to vein puncture; the number of successful insertions of the central venous catheter, the number of attempts and the duration of catheterization (from puncture of EJV to external fixation of the catheter); and the incidence of complications. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. Data were expressed as mean +/- SD. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney test and chi2-test were used for analysis and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The power of the study was 85%.
The EJV puncture was successful in 24 out of 30 (80%) patients from group SA and in 22 out of 30 (73%) patients from group US (P = NS). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the mean time to perform the vein puncture and the number of attempts. The insertion of the central venous catheter was performed successfully in 10 (33%) patients from group SA and six (20%) patients from group US. The success rate of central cannulation via the EJV approach was 10 out of 24 (42%) in group SA and six out of 22 (27%) in group US (P = NS). The total time for insertion and the number of attempts were similar in both groups (P = NS). Local haematoma occurred in 11 patients in group SA and in three patients in group US (P = NS).
Our results demonstrate no significant differences between the conventional surface anatomy landmark technique and the ultrasound-guided technique for the insertion of a central venous catheter via EJV by inexperienced trainees.
由于经颈外静脉(EJV)置入中心静脉导管的失败率相对较高,因此并非总是可行,通常采用颈内静脉入路。文献中的数据表明,超声引导下的颈内静脉置管优于体表解剖标志技术,因此应作为首选方法。我们评估了在同样缺乏经验的受训者中,超声引导在 EJV 中心静脉置管学习过程中的价值。
在这项前瞻性随机研究中,将 60 名患者分为两组:体表解剖标志组(SA 组,n = 30)采用体表解剖标志引导进行中心静脉导管插入,超声组(US 组,n = 30)采用超声引导进行。所有患者均由培训的第二年的受训者通过右侧 EJV 进行中心静脉导管插入。超声引导由同一位超声专家进行。所有患者评估以下参数:右侧 EJV 穿刺成功次数、总穿刺次数和穿刺时间;中心静脉导管插入成功次数、尝试次数和置管时间(从 EJV 穿刺到导管外固定);并发症发生率。该研究获得了机构伦理委员会的批准,所有患者均签署了书面知情同意书。数据表示为平均值 ± SD。采用 Student's t 检验、Mann-Whitney 检验和卡方检验进行分析,P < 0.05 为统计学显著。该研究的效力为 85%。
SA 组 30 例患者中有 24 例(80%)和 US 组 30 例患者中有 22 例(73%)成功穿刺右侧 EJV(P = NS)。两组在完成静脉穿刺的平均时间和尝试次数方面无统计学差异。SA 组 10 例(33%)和 US 组 6 例(20%)患者成功插入中心静脉导管。SA 组经 EJV 途径行中心静脉置管成功率为 24 例中的 10 例(42%),US 组为 22 例中的 6 例(27%)(P = NS)。两组的总置管时间和尝试次数相似(P = NS)。SA 组 11 例患者和 US 组 3 例患者出现局部血肿(P = NS)。
我们的结果表明,在缺乏经验的受训者中,经颈外静脉置入中心静脉导管时,传统的体表解剖标志技术与超声引导技术之间无显著差异。