2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05651-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complications in internal jugular vs subclavian ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization: a comparative randomized trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
56
2
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
5
56
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Other ultrasound-guided approaches, including the subclavian vein (SCV), axillary vein and femoral vein, are also increasingly supported by evidence. Shin et al demonstrated a very low complication rates for both IJV and SCV ultrasound-guided catheterization [16]. This new study demonstrated that catheterization of both veins is safe when guided by ultrasound, without superiority of the subclavian approach.…”
Section: Procedural Guidancementioning
confidence: 73%
“…Other ultrasound-guided approaches, including the subclavian vein (SCV), axillary vein and femoral vein, are also increasingly supported by evidence. Shin et al demonstrated a very low complication rates for both IJV and SCV ultrasound-guided catheterization [16]. This new study demonstrated that catheterization of both veins is safe when guided by ultrasound, without superiority of the subclavian approach.…”
Section: Procedural Guidancementioning
confidence: 73%
“…Moreover, all patients reported better scores [15]. Furthermore, we required subclavian central venous catheter insertion to monitor ScVO 2 that has its own risks of several complications including infection, subclavian artery puncture, hemothorax, and pneumothorax [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All the included studies recorded arterial injury complication, probably because it's one of the most common instant mechanical complications both in traditional landmark cannulation and the ultrasound assisted cannulation 2,24 . The seven studies together created a moderate heterogeneity (I 2 =70.2%), but no signi cant statistical difference was detected between the two insertion sites in the quantitative analysis (RR=1.137, 95% CI: 0.541-2.387, p=0.735, Figure 2).…”
Section: Arterial Injurymentioning
confidence: 99%