Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31829196›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2019

Comparison between ultrasound-guided TIVAD via the right innominate vein and the right internal jugular vein approach.

Xingwei Sun, Xuming Bai, Jiaofeng Shen, Ziyang Yu, Zhixiang Zhuang, Yong Jin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xingwei SunDepartment of Intervention, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China.
Xuming BaiDepartment of Intervention, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China.
Jiaofeng ShenDepartment of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China.
Ziyang YuDepartment of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China.
Zhixiang ZhuangDepartment of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China. 2104184578@qq.com.
Yong JinDepartment of Intervention, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, 215004, Jiangsu, China. 578898234@qq.com.

Funding

Pre-research Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China SDFEYGJ1801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of right internal jugular vein (IJV) approach and right innominate vein (INV) approach for US-guided totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs), and to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches.

methodsSix hundred and nineteen adult patients had long-term infusion and chemotherapy needs and inconvenience of peripheral venous infusion. Right INV approach was used to implant 339 cases of TIVADs, and right IJV approach was used to implant 280 cases of TIVADs. The success rate of one-time catheterization and the incidence of complications in the two groups were retrospectively analyzed.

resultsAll patients were successfully implanted in TIVAD. The success rates of one-time puncture in INV group and IJV approach group were 98.53% (334/339) and 95.36% (267/280), respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.020). The incidence of perioperative complications and long-term complications in the right INV group were 1.18% (4/339) and 3.54% (12/339), respectively, while those in the right IJV group were 1.43% (4280) and 3.93% (11280). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative or long-term complications between the two groups (P = 0.785, P = 0.799, respectively).

conclusionsUS-guided TIVADs via the right INV approach and the right IJV approach are both safe and reliable. The right INV approach improves the one-time puncture success rate, as long as the technique is properly operated, serious complications rarely occur.

Indexed as

Brachiocephalic VeinsJugular VeinsUltrasonography, InterventionalAdultAgedCatheterization, Central VenousCatheters, IndwellingFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesCancerInnominate veinInternal jugular veinTotally implantable venous access deviceUS-guided

Identifiers

PMID31829196
PMCPMC6907195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.