The role of point-of-care ultrasonography in central venous catheter insertion: A randomized controlled trial of safety and cost-effectiveness.

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.

即时超声检查在中心静脉置管中的作用:一项安全性和成本效益的随机对照试验。
目的:本研究的目的是比较基于地标和超声引导的中心静脉置管技术(CVC)。设计:随机对照试验(2021-2023)。环境:扎加齐格大学医院(ZUH),三级护理中心。患者:指征CVC插入的成年患者。主要感兴趣的变量:人口统计学和临床围手术期数据,技术的安全性,执行时间和成本效益进行比较。结果:患者年龄从17岁到80岁不等,56%为男性。紧急适应症发生率约为22%,组间无显著差异。在表现时间方面,超声引导法的表现时间略短但显著(25.7 ± 4.3;范围:18-33)与盲法相比(26.9 ± 7.4;范围:15-45)(p值< 0.001),无并发症的患者数量较高但不显著(64% vs 52%;假定值 = 0.2)。盲法和超声引导法分别有12例(12%)和8例(8%)CVC插入失败(p值 = 0.04)。采用盲法穿刺颈动脉导致颈部血肿的患者仅8例(8%)(p值 = 0.04)。在盲法组中,只有36例(36%)患者消耗了额外的费用(p值 = 0.001)。结论:超声束在CVC插入中的应用优于盲法,安全性好,性价比高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信