From the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, Milan, Italy.
Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia and ICU, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.
Anesth Analg. 2018 Jul;127(1):146-150. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003357.
Although many studies have compared success and complication rates for central line insertion sites with and without ultrasound, few have examined the use of the brachiocephalic vein for central venous access. The aim of this study was to describe the brachiocephalic vein as an alternative site for elective ultrasound vascular cannulation in adults, and to compare it with the more commonly used internal jugular vein site in terms of procedural difficulties, first pass failure rate, overall failure rate, and safety.
In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, clinical data from consecutive adult patients undergoing elective ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization of upper body were retrieved from the department database. All of these central venous catheters were requested by department team, none was positioned for surgery. Seven hundred nine patients underwent central venous catheterization via the internal jugular approach and 285 patients via the brachiocephalic route. Patients catheterized via the brachiocephalic vein approach were then compared with those catheterized via the internal jugular vein in terms of ease of catheterization, success rate, and complications. Differences between approaches were assessed by univariate analyses and multivariable analysis.
Overall, 994 patients underwent central venous catheterization. A total of 87% had a successful catheter implantation at the first attempt, 6.7% of insertions were difficult, 5.7% were complicated, and 3.4% failed. Procedural difficulty was more frequent with the internal jugular than with the brachiocephalic approach (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.76; P = .007) after correction for potential confounders. Differences between groups in complication rate (6.3% vs 4.1%) or failure rate (3.4% vs 3.5%) were not significant.
Brachiocephalic cannulation is a reasonable alternative to ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization.
虽然许多研究比较了超声引导下中心静脉置管的中心静脉置管部位的成功率和并发症发生率,但很少有研究检查肱静脉在中心静脉通路中的应用。本研究旨在描述肱静脉作为成人选择性超声血管穿刺的替代部位,并与更常用的内颈静脉部位在操作难度、首次通过失败率、总失败率和安全性方面进行比较。
在这项单中心回顾性队列研究中,从科室数据库中检索了连续接受择期超声引导下上半身中心静脉置管的成年患者的临床数据。所有这些中心静脉导管都是由科室团队要求的,没有一个是为手术而放置的。709 例患者经颈内静脉入路行中心静脉置管,285 例患者经肱静脉入路行中心静脉置管。然后,将经肱静脉入路置管的患者与经颈内静脉入路置管的患者在置管的难易程度、成功率和并发症方面进行比较。采用单变量分析和多变量分析评估两种方法的差异。
共有 994 例患者接受了中心静脉置管。总的来说,87%的患者首次尝试时导管植入成功,6.7%的插入困难,5.7%的并发症复杂,3.4%的患者失败。经校正潜在混杂因素后,颈内静脉入路的操作难度明显高于肱静脉入路(比值比,0.38;95%置信区间,0.19-0.76;P=0.007)。两组之间在并发症发生率(6.3%对 4.1%)或失败率(3.4%对 3.5%)方面无显著差异。
肱静脉置管是超声引导下颈内静脉置管的合理替代方法。