We have located links that may give you full text access.
Internal Jugular Vein Cannulation Using a 3-Dimensional Ultrasound Probe in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: Comparison Between Biplane View and Short-Axis View.
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2020 August 15
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance in terms of procedure time, success rate, and cannulation attempts between ultrasound biplane view (BPX) and short-axis (SAX) view for internal jugular vein cannulation (IJV) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
DESIGN: Prospective, observational pilot study.
SETTING: University level tertiary referral hospital.
PATIENTS: The study comprised 100 patients between ages 18 and 75 years undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
INTERVENTIONS: One hundred patients were divided into 2 groups of 50 (BPX group and SAX group) by assigning the study participants alternatively to each group. IJV cannulation was performed using a 3-dimensional ultrasound probe in all patients with either BPX view (BPX group, n = 50) or the SAX view (SAX group, n = 50) by an experienced anesthesiologist.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time required for imaging, time for IJV puncture, time for guidewire confirmation, number of needle punctures and needle redirections, and incidence of posterior wall puncture were noted in both groups. In addition, the quality of needle visualization and the incidence of complications were recorded. The time taken for imaging was significantly greater in the BPX group than in the SAX group (9.52 ± 2.69 s v 7.94 ± 2.55 s; p = 0.0034), whereas the time taken for IJV puncture (10.39 ± 2.33 s v 23.7 ± 2.46 s; p < 0.0001), time taken for confirmation of guidewire (32.94 ± 4.50 s v 57.64 ± 7.14 s; p < 0.0001), and the incidence of posterior wall puncture (4% v 26%; p = 0.0022) were significantly less in the BPX group than in the SAX group. The total number of attempts taken to puncture the IJV was fewer in the BPX group than in the SAX group (55 v 78). Successful puncture of the IJV occurred on the first attempt in 90% of patients in the BPX group, whereas it was only 50% in the SAX group (p < 0.0001). The quality of needle visualization was good in 90% of patients in the BPX group, whereas it was only 6% in the SAX group. The number of needle redirections for IJV puncture was less in the BPX group than in the SAX group (48 v 116). The incidence of complications was not significant between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The results suggested that the BPX view may be a safer, feasible and more reliable method than the SAX view for IJV cannulation in cardiac surgical patients.
DESIGN: Prospective, observational pilot study.
SETTING: University level tertiary referral hospital.
PATIENTS: The study comprised 100 patients between ages 18 and 75 years undergoing elective cardiac surgery.
INTERVENTIONS: One hundred patients were divided into 2 groups of 50 (BPX group and SAX group) by assigning the study participants alternatively to each group. IJV cannulation was performed using a 3-dimensional ultrasound probe in all patients with either BPX view (BPX group, n = 50) or the SAX view (SAX group, n = 50) by an experienced anesthesiologist.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Time required for imaging, time for IJV puncture, time for guidewire confirmation, number of needle punctures and needle redirections, and incidence of posterior wall puncture were noted in both groups. In addition, the quality of needle visualization and the incidence of complications were recorded. The time taken for imaging was significantly greater in the BPX group than in the SAX group (9.52 ± 2.69 s v 7.94 ± 2.55 s; p = 0.0034), whereas the time taken for IJV puncture (10.39 ± 2.33 s v 23.7 ± 2.46 s; p < 0.0001), time taken for confirmation of guidewire (32.94 ± 4.50 s v 57.64 ± 7.14 s; p < 0.0001), and the incidence of posterior wall puncture (4% v 26%; p = 0.0022) were significantly less in the BPX group than in the SAX group. The total number of attempts taken to puncture the IJV was fewer in the BPX group than in the SAX group (55 v 78). Successful puncture of the IJV occurred on the first attempt in 90% of patients in the BPX group, whereas it was only 50% in the SAX group (p < 0.0001). The quality of needle visualization was good in 90% of patients in the BPX group, whereas it was only 6% in the SAX group. The number of needle redirections for IJV puncture was less in the BPX group than in the SAX group (48 v 116). The incidence of complications was not significant between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The results suggested that the BPX view may be a safer, feasible and more reliable method than the SAX view for IJV cannulation in cardiac surgical patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
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