Department of Anesthesiology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital/Chongqing Cancer Institute/Chongqing Cancer Hospital, China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital/Chongqing Cancer Institute/Chongqing Cancer Hospital, China.
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Jul;38(7):1475-1480. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.04.015. Epub 2020 Apr 8.
In this meta-analysis, we investigated the success rate of subclavian venous catheterization (SVC) as well as the incidence of related complications when performed via the supraclavicular (SC) or traditional infraclavicular (IC) approaches.
Ignoring the original language, we identified and analyzed eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published on or before December 30, 2018, after searching the following five bibliographic databases: PubMed, Springer, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. All included studies compared the clinical safety and efficiency of the SC and IC approaches for SVC in adults. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of each RCT. Cannulation failure rates and the incidence of malposition were regarded as the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included cannulation access time and the incidence of pneumothorax and artery puncture.
Failure rates were significantly lower for SVC via the SC approach than via the IC approach [odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47 to 0.93]. The SC approach was also associated with a decreased incidence of catheter malposition, relative to that observed for the IC approach [odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46]. The SC approach did not reduce the time required for cannulation [mean difference, -74.74; 95% CI, -157.80 to 8.33], and there were no differences in the incidence of artery puncture [odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.23] or pneumothorax [odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.33 to 2.40].
Our findings suggest that SVC via the SC approach should be utilized in adults.
在这项荟萃分析中,我们研究了经锁骨上(SC)或传统锁骨下(IC)途径进行锁骨下静脉置管(SVC)的成功率以及相关并发症的发生率。
忽略原文语言,我们在 2018 年 12 月 30 日之前,通过搜索以下五个文献数据库:PubMed、Springer、Medline、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library,确定并分析了 8 项随机对照试验(RCT)。所有纳入的研究均比较了成人 SC 和 IC 途径进行 SVC 的临床安全性和效率。使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具评估每个 RCT 的方法学质量。置管失败率和错位发生率被视为主要结局指标。次要结局指标包括置管进入时间以及气胸和动脉穿刺的发生率。
SC 途径的 SVC 置管失败率明显低于 IC 途径[比值比,0.66;95%置信区间(CI),0.47 至 0.93]。与 IC 途径相比,SC 途径还与导管错位发生率降低相关[比值比,0.24;95%CI,0.13 至 0.46]。SC 途径并未减少置管所需的时间[平均差值,-74.74;95%CI,-157.80 至 8.33],且动脉穿刺的发生率[比值比,0.60;95%CI,0.29 至 1.23]或气胸[比值比,0.89;95%CI,0.33 至 2.40]均无差异。
我们的研究结果表明,成人应采用 SC 途径进行 SVC。