Tarbiat Masoud, Salimbahrami Sayed Ahmad Reza, Khorshidi Hamid Reza
Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Research Development Unit of Farshchian Heart Center, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Department of Surgery, Clinical Research Development Unit of Farshchian Heart Center, School of Medicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Anesth Pain Med. 2019 Aug 21;9(4):e92724. doi: 10.5812/aapm.92724. eCollection 2019 Aug.
Choosing a proper approach to subclavian vein cannulation is a challenge for physicians. However, percutaneous infraclavicular subclavian vein cannulation is now an acceptable technique.
The present study was performed to compare the success rate and complications of subclavian vein cannulation using the midpoint technique and the lateral technique.
In this prospective randomized clinical trial, we randomly assigned 440 patients undergoing subclavian vein cannulation to either midpoint approach or lateral approach groups from April 2018 to February 2019. The complications and success rates of catheterization were compared between the two approaches. The data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 20).
Unlike the first attempt of catheterization, the success rate was significantly higher in the midpoint technique (75 %) than in lateral technique (39%) in the second attempt (P = 0.003). The overall success rates were 96.8% and 88.6% in the midpoint approach and lateral approach, respectively. A significant difference was observed between the two techniques in the overall success rate (P = 0.001). Inadvertent subclavian artery puncture occurred in 26 (5.9%) patients including 3 (1.4%) patients in the midpoint technique and 23 (10.5%) patients in the lateral technique. In 19 (4.3%) patients, malposition of the catheter tip occurred, including 14 (6.4%) in the midpoint approach and 5 (2.3%) in the lateral approach. There was a significant difference between the two approaches in malposition and subclavian artery puncture (P = 0.035 and P = 0.0001, respectively). There were no significant differences between the two techniques in other complications.
This investigation showed that the midpoint approach was more appropriate than the lateral approach for infraclavicular subclavian vein catheterization with landmark-based techniques.
选择合适的锁骨下静脉插管方法对医生来说是一项挑战。然而,经皮锁骨下锁骨下静脉插管现在是一种可接受的技术。
本研究旨在比较使用中点技术和外侧技术进行锁骨下静脉插管的成功率和并发症。
在这项前瞻性随机临床试验中,我们将2018年4月至2019年2月期间接受锁骨下静脉插管的440例患者随机分为中点入路组或外侧入路组。比较两种入路的插管并发症和成功率。使用SPSS软件(版本20)对数据进行分析。
与首次插管尝试不同,第二次尝试时,中点技术的成功率(75%)显著高于外侧技术(39%)(P = 0.003)。中点入路和外侧入路的总体成功率分别为96.8%和88.6%。两种技术在总体成功率上存在显著差异(P = 0.001)。26例(5.9%)患者发生意外锁骨下动脉穿刺,其中中点技术组3例(1.4%),外侧技术组23例(10.5%)。19例(4.3%)患者发生导管尖端位置不当,其中中点入路组14例(6.4%),外侧入路组5例(2.3%)。两种入路在位置不当和锁骨下动脉穿刺方面存在显著差异(分别为P = 0.035和P = 0.0001)。两种技术在其他并发症方面无显著差异。
本研究表明,对于基于体表标志技术的锁骨下锁骨下静脉插管,中点入路比外侧入路更合适。