通过地标技术对颈外静脉和颈内静脉导管插入术进行比较评估。

IF 1.2 Q3 SURGERY
Journal of perioperative practice Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-22 DOI:10.1177/17504589231154360
Hitesh Khanna, Sachin Shouche, Shalendra Singh
{"title":"通过地标技术对颈外静脉和颈内静脉导管插入术进行比较评估。","authors":"Hitesh Khanna, Sachin Shouche, Shalendra Singh","doi":"10.1177/17504589231154360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannulation of a central vein is crucial in patients for hemodynamic management and when insertion of a peripheral line is not possible. The internal jugular vein is the preferred access site; however, in the case of not being accessible, the second cannulation site of choice is still unclear. The study aimed to access the feasibility of external jugular vein cannulation versus internal jugular vein cannulation in terms of success, cannulation time, number of attempts and complications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomised double-blinded study, 100 patients received 7Fr size triple-lumen central vein catheter either in the internal jugular vein (n = 50) or external jugular vein (n = 50) through the landmark technique as a part of anaesthetic care in the operation theatre. The number of attempts, cannulation time and incidence of complications in both the techniques were observed and recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rate in internal jugular vein cannulation was 88%, while in the external jugular vein, it was 78% (p = 0.17). The external jugular vein cannulation was comparatively quicker in our study (p = 0.01). Similarly, elevated body mass index did not affect the success rate in the number of cannulations attempts in either group (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, the internal jugular vein group had a total of 20% and the external jugular vein group had 28% complications; however, the complications were more severe in the internal jugular vein group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anaesthetists should rethink alternate routes for the insertion of central vein cannulation. The external jugular cannulation route is one of them.</p>","PeriodicalId":35481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of perioperative practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation between external jugular and internal jugular venous catheterization through landmark technique.\",\"authors\":\"Hitesh Khanna, Sachin Shouche, Shalendra Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17504589231154360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannulation of a central vein is crucial in patients for hemodynamic management and when insertion of a peripheral line is not possible. The internal jugular vein is the preferred access site; however, in the case of not being accessible, the second cannulation site of choice is still unclear. The study aimed to access the feasibility of external jugular vein cannulation versus internal jugular vein cannulation in terms of success, cannulation time, number of attempts and complications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomised double-blinded study, 100 patients received 7Fr size triple-lumen central vein catheter either in the internal jugular vein (n = 50) or external jugular vein (n = 50) through the landmark technique as a part of anaesthetic care in the operation theatre. The number of attempts, cannulation time and incidence of complications in both the techniques were observed and recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rate in internal jugular vein cannulation was 88%, while in the external jugular vein, it was 78% (p = 0.17). The external jugular vein cannulation was comparatively quicker in our study (p = 0.01). Similarly, elevated body mass index did not affect the success rate in the number of cannulations attempts in either group (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, the internal jugular vein group had a total of 20% and the external jugular vein group had 28% complications; however, the complications were more severe in the internal jugular vein group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anaesthetists should rethink alternate routes for the insertion of central vein cannulation. The external jugular cannulation route is one of them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of perioperative practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of perioperative practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231154360\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of perioperative practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231154360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在无法插入外周管路的情况下,对患者进行中心静脉插管对血液动力学管理至关重要。颈内静脉是首选的入路部位;然而,在无法进入的情况下,第二个插管部位的选择仍不明确。该研究旨在从成功率、插管时间、尝试次数和并发症等方面探讨颈外静脉插管与颈内静脉插管的可行性:在这项前瞻性随机双盲研究中,作为手术室麻醉护理的一部分,100 名患者通过地标技术在颈内静脉(n = 50)或颈外静脉(n = 50)接受了 7Fr 大小的三腔中心静脉导管。对两种技术的尝试次数、插管时间和并发症发生率进行了观察和记录:结果:颈内静脉插管的成功率为 88%,而颈外静脉插管的成功率为 78%(P = 0.17)。在我们的研究中,颈外静脉插管相对更快(p = 0.01)。同样,体重指数升高也不会影响两组患者的插管成功率(p = 0.08)。在并发症方面,颈内静脉组的并发症发生率为 20%,颈外静脉组的并发症发生率为 28%;但颈内静脉组的并发症更为严重:结论:麻醉师应重新考虑插入中心静脉插管的其他途径。结论:麻醉师应重新考虑中心静脉插管的其他途径,颈外静脉插管途径就是其中之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation between external jugular and internal jugular venous catheterization through landmark technique.

Background: Cannulation of a central vein is crucial in patients for hemodynamic management and when insertion of a peripheral line is not possible. The internal jugular vein is the preferred access site; however, in the case of not being accessible, the second cannulation site of choice is still unclear. The study aimed to access the feasibility of external jugular vein cannulation versus internal jugular vein cannulation in terms of success, cannulation time, number of attempts and complications.

Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomised double-blinded study, 100 patients received 7Fr size triple-lumen central vein catheter either in the internal jugular vein (n = 50) or external jugular vein (n = 50) through the landmark technique as a part of anaesthetic care in the operation theatre. The number of attempts, cannulation time and incidence of complications in both the techniques were observed and recorded.

Results: The success rate in internal jugular vein cannulation was 88%, while in the external jugular vein, it was 78% (p = 0.17). The external jugular vein cannulation was comparatively quicker in our study (p = 0.01). Similarly, elevated body mass index did not affect the success rate in the number of cannulations attempts in either group (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, the internal jugular vein group had a total of 20% and the external jugular vein group had 28% complications; however, the complications were more severe in the internal jugular vein group.

Conclusion: Anaesthetists should rethink alternate routes for the insertion of central vein cannulation. The external jugular cannulation route is one of them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of perioperative practice
Journal of perioperative practice Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perioperative Practice (JPP) is the official journal of the Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). It is an international, peer reviewed journal with a multidisciplinary ethos across all aspects of perioperative care. The overall aim of the journal is to improve patient safety through informing and developing practice. It is an informative professional journal which provides current evidence-based practice, clinical, management and educational developments for practitioners working in the perioperative environment. The journal promotes perioperative practice by publishing clinical research-based articles, literature reviews, topical discussions, advice on clinical issues, current news items and product information.
×
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