We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Comparative evaluation of the clinical safety and efficiency of supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches for subclavian venous catheterization in adults: A meta-analysis.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2020 July
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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].
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SVC via the SC approach should be utilized in adults.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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].
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that SVC via the SC approach should be utilized in adults.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app