Ahmed Beniamen, Ahmed Mosallem, Hossam Tharwat Ali, Hanaa A Nofal, Essamedin M Negm
{"title":"The role of point-of-care ultrasonography in central venous catheter insertion: A randomized controlled trial of safety and cost-effectiveness.","authors":"Ahmed Beniamen, Ahmed Mosallem, Hossam Tharwat Ali, Hanaa A Nofal, Essamedin M Negm","doi":"10.1016/j.medine.2025.502221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the study was to compare landmark-based and ultrasound-guided techniques of central venous catheter insertion (CVC).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Randomized controlled trial (2021-2023).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Zagazig University Hospitals (ZUH), a tertiary care center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients in whom CVC insertion is indicated.</p><p><strong>Main variables of interest: </strong>Demographic and clinical peri-procedural data, the safety of the technique, time of performance, and cost-effectiveness were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patient ages ranged from 17 to 80 years with 56% being males. Urgent indications were found in around 22% without significant differences between groups. Regarding the time of performance, the ultrasound-guided method had slightly but significantly less time of performance (25.7 ± 4.3; range: 18-33) compared to the blind technique (26.9 ± 7.4; range: 15-45) (P-value < 0.001) with a higher but non-significant number of patients without complications (64% vs 52%; P-value = 0.2). Failure to insert the CVC into the IJV occurred in 12 patients (12%) with the blind technique and in eight patients (8%) with the ultrasound-guided technique (P-value = 0.04). Carotid artery puncture with neck hematoma occurred in only 8 (8%) patients with the blind technique (P-value = 0.04). Excess cost was consumed in only 36 patients (36%) in the blind technique group (P-value = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasonography bundle for CVC insertion is considered superior to, safer, and more cost-effective than the blind technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":94139,"journal":{"name":"Medicina intensiva","volume":" ","pages":"502221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to compare landmark-based and ultrasound-guided techniques of central venous catheter insertion (CVC).
Design: Randomized controlled trial (2021-2023).
Setting: Zagazig University Hospitals (ZUH), a tertiary care center.
Patients: Adult patients in whom CVC insertion is indicated.
Main variables of interest: Demographic and clinical peri-procedural data, the safety of the technique, time of performance, and cost-effectiveness were compared.
Results: Patient ages ranged from 17 to 80 years with 56% being males. Urgent indications were found in around 22% without significant differences between groups. Regarding the time of performance, the ultrasound-guided method had slightly but significantly less time of performance (25.7 ± 4.3; range: 18-33) compared to the blind technique (26.9 ± 7.4; range: 15-45) (P-value < 0.001) with a higher but non-significant number of patients without complications (64% vs 52%; P-value = 0.2). Failure to insert the CVC into the IJV occurred in 12 patients (12%) with the blind technique and in eight patients (8%) with the ultrasound-guided technique (P-value = 0.04). Carotid artery puncture with neck hematoma occurred in only 8 (8%) patients with the blind technique (P-value = 0.04). Excess cost was consumed in only 36 patients (36%) in the blind technique group (P-value = 0.001).
Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasonography bundle for CVC insertion is considered superior to, safer, and more cost-effective than the blind technique.