Cochrane · systematic review · CD006962
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization
Brass, P, Hellmich, M, Kolodziej, L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
Emergency and Critical CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 46.2%Low 4 · 30.8%Moderate 3 · 23.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Ultrasound guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
Population: patients with internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complication rate total Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.29 [0.17, 0.52] | 14 studies · 2406 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Overall success rate Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.12 [1.08, 1.17] | 23 studies · 4340 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Number of attempts until success Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | no estimate extracted | 16 studies · 3302 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Arterial puncture Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.28 [0.18, 0.44] | 22 studies · 4388 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury) Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.34 [0.15, 0.76] | 11 studies · 3042 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to successful cannulation Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | no estimate extracted | 20 studies · 3451 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias |
Success with attempt number 1Â Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.57 [1.36, 1.82] | 18 studies · 2681 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Doppler guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
Population: patients with internal jugular vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complication rate total Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.52 [0.16, 1.71] | 3 studies · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Overall success rate Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.09 [0.95, 1.25] | 7 studies · 289 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of attempts until success Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 69 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Arterial puncture Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.61 [0.21, 1.73] | 6 studies · 213 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to successful cannulation Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 214 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Success with attempt number 1 Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.58 [1.02, 2.43] | 4 studies · 199 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |