Observational studyDer Anaesthesist2020
[Ultrasound visualization of the guidewire and positioning of the central venous catheter : A prospective observational study].
Observational study in Der Anaesthesist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-Guided Placement of Tunneled Hemodialysis Catheters Using Direct Atrial Visualization: Clinical and Functional Results at One Year Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- A Simple and Safe Method for Checking the Position of Central Venous Catheters-A New and Reliable Threshold for Right Atrial Swirl Sign in Microbubbles Tests.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- The role of PEEP for cannulation of the subclavian vein: A prospective observational study.PloS one · 2023Observational
- Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Protocol to Confirm Central Venous Catheter Placement in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Prospective Feasibility Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) the catheter position must be controlled and a pneumothorax ruled out.
objectiveThe aim was to examine whether the use of two standard acoustic windows known from emergency sonography examination techniques is feasible to 1) verify the correct intravenous localization and direction of the guidewire before final CVC insertion and 2) correctly predict the required CVC length for positioning of the catheter tip in the lower third of the superior vena cava. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis single center prospective observational study included adult patients (age ≥18 years) with an indication for CVC insertion after institutional ethics approval was obtained. Puncture sites were restricted to bilateral internal jugular and subclavian veins and except for duplicate examinations no further exclusion criteria were defined. After vessel puncture and insertion of the guidewire, the vena cava was displayed by an additional ultrasound examiner (sector scanner 1.5-3.6 MHz) using the transhepatic or subcostal acoustic window to localize the guidewire. For positioning of the CVC tip, the required catheter length in relation to the cavoatrial junction was measured using the guidewire marks during slow retraction and consecutive disappearance of the J‑shaped guidewire tip from each acoustic window. From the resulting insertion length of the guidewire 4 cm was subtracted for the transhepatic and 2 cm for the subcostal window under the assumption that this length correlates to the distance from the cavoatrial junction. The CVC was finally inserted and a chest radiograph was performed for radiological verification of the CVC position.
resultsOf 100 included patients, 94 could finally be analyzed. The guidewire could be identified in the vena cava in 91 patients (97%) within a time period of 2.2 ± 1.9 min. In three patients, the wire could not be visualized, although two catheters had the correct position, while one catheter was incorrectly positioned in the opposite axillary vein. In the second study part, positioning of the CVC was evaluated in 44 of the 94 patients. In 5 of these 44 patients, the correct direction and disappearance of the guidewire from the acoustic window could also be reliably visualized; however, with the left subclavian vein as the puncture site, the respective catheters were up to 6 cm too short for correct positioning. Thus, these 5 patients were excluded from this analysis. In the remaining 39 patients, the position of the CVC tip was optimally located in the lower third of the superior vena cava according to the chest radiograph in 20 patients (51%), while it was relatively too high in 5 patients (13%) and too low (entrance of the right atrium) in 9 patients. In the other 5 patients, disappearance of the guidewire from the acoustic window was not definitely detectable.
conclusionThe presented intraprocedural ultrasound-based method using two standard acoustic windows is reliable for verification of the correct intravenous location and direction of the guidewire even before dilatation of the vessel puncture site for insertion of the catheter. Furthermore, the method allows the clinically acceptable measurement of the required length for catheter positioning. A chest radiograph can be waived provided the ultrasound examination (identification of the guidewire and exclusion of puncture-related complications such as pneumothorax) is unambiguous.
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.