Ultrasound guided versus land mark technique for internal jugular central venous catheterization in cardiac surgical patients- a randomized trial

Parajuli, Santosh Sharma; Pokharel, Jeju Nath

doi:10.3126/jsan.v3i1.14636

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the number of attempts in the landmark group ranged between 1 and 6 with a mean of 1.54 ± 1.03, while in the ultrasound group, the number of attempts ranged between 1 and 3 with a mean of 1.21 ± 0.50. There was a significant reduction in the number of attempts between landmark and ultrasound groups ( p =0.011) ( Table 2 ), which was comparable to the study done by Agarwal et al [ 2 ] and also in many previous studies such as Parajuli and Pokharel [ 3 ] and Karakitsos et al [ 1 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Central Venous Catheter Insertion: A Scoring System for Evaluation of Both the Procedure and the Operator (CVCI Score/Gaber Score)

Gaber

Ahmed

Nabil

et al. 2020

Critical Care Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Currently, there is no method to assess the performance while inserting a central venous catheter. We suggest a new scoring system for evaluation of both the technique as well as the operator, and then we applied it for the comparison between the landmark and ultrasound techniques to assess its validity. Methods. Four hundred patients were divided into two equal groups: group (A): internal jugular vein (IJV) and group (B): subclavian vein (SV). The landmark technique and the ultrasound guidance were used equally (100 patients for each) in both groups. Results. In group (A), 20% of patients in the landmark group achieved score 4, while 82% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score. This suggests that the ultrasound technique for catheterization of IJV decreased overall complications and improved the success rate. In group (B), there were 70% of patients in the landmark group who achieved score 5, while 49% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score which proposes that the landmark technique might be deceptively better than the ultrasound technique for catheterization of SV. This could be because the time required for catheterization of SV by the ultrasound technique was longer than that in the landmark technique. Overall complications of 15% with the landmark technique vs. 2% with ultrasound guidance in this group of patients are not only statistically significant but also increase morbidity and mortality with a highly invasive procedure. Complications and their incidences are by far more significant than seconds of time. Our results suggest that the ultrasound technique could decrease the incidence of overall complications, but it is time-consuming in group (B). These results support the validity of our new scoring system. Conclusion. We suggest a new scoring system for CVC insertion that can be used for evaluation of both the technique and the operator. It can evaluate the performance of junior staff and follow their progress. It can be applied in the medical and critical care practice as well as the quality management privileges and protocols.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%