ArticleDer Anaesthesist2016
[Visualization of the superior vena cava in the supraclavicular acoustic window].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ultrasound-guided venipuncture of the internal jugular vein for placement of a central venous catheter is well established. For verification of the catheter tip position mostly intracardiac ECG or chest radiography are used. Previously, we established the right supraclavicular fossa view for ultrasound based verification of the catheter placement in the superior vena cava utilizing a microconvex probe. The microconvex probe has a small footprint. However, not all ultrasound systems used in the operating theater are equipped with a microconvex transducer.
aimThus, we systematically compared the visibility of intrathoracic vessels obtained by a linear and a microconvex prone via the right supraclavicular view. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe assessed the visibility of the junction of the brachiocephalic veins, the superior vena cava, the right pulmonary artery, the ascending aorta and the internal jugular vein, comparing a linear with a microconvex probe when using the right supraclavicular view in healthy volunteers. The superior vena cava also was identified using Doppler ultrasound.
resultsWith the microconvex probe the superior vena cava was visible in all 30 healthy volunteers, but with a linear transducer it was visible in only 53 %. The combined view of the superior vena cava and the right pulmonary artery was possible in all cases when using the microconvex probe, but in only 38 % when using the linear probe. The junction of the brachiocephalic veins was seen in 75 % of the volunteers with the microconvex probe and in 38 % with the linear one. The aorta was visible in 87 % of cases with the microconvex transducer, but only in 30 % with the linear probe. The internal jugular vein was always visible with either probe.
conclusionThe microconvex transducer as compared to the linear probe is superior in visualizing the superior vena cava. Possible reasons are a smaller footprint, a better degree of freedom for angulation and a greater penetration depth of the microconvex probe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.