Cochrane · systematic review · CD011447
Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral 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
11
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 27.3%Low 5 · 45.5%Moderate 1 · 9.1%High 2 · 18.2%
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 or Doppler guidance compared with anatomical landmark for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
Population: patients with the need for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complication rate total Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | RR 0.52 [0.23, 1.17] | 6 studies · 1478 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Overall success rate Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | RR 1.05 [0.97, 1.13] | 8 studies · 1809 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Number of attempts until success Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 471 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Arterial puncture Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | RR 0.21 [0.06, 0.82] | 3 studies · 498 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury) Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | RR 0.29 [0.07, 1.21] | 6 studies · 1058 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to successful cannulation Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 471 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Success with attempt number 1 Ultrasound or Doppler guidance vs anatomical landmark | RR 1.08 [0.85, 1.36] | 2 studies · 115 participants | High |
Ultrasound guidance compared with anatomical landmarks for femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
Population: patients with femoral vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall success rate Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.11 [1, 1.23] | 4 studies · 311 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Arterial puncture Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.4 [0.14, 1.16] | 4 studies · 311 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury) Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 0.49 [0.11, 2.12] | 4 studies · 311 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Success with attempt number 1 Ultrasound guidance vs anatomical landmarks | RR 1.73 [1.34, 2.22] | 3 studies · 224 participants | High |