ArticleAnnals of intensive care2020
Comparison of the proximal and distal approaches for axillary vein catheterization under ultrasound guidance (PANDA) in cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of the Proximal Approach and Distal Approach of Axillary Vein Catheterization Under Ultrasound Guidance in Cardiac Surgical Patients With Risk of Bleeding: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Ultrasound-guided Axillary Vein Catheterization in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central venous cannulation in critically ill patients: guidelines of the Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2026Guideline
- Efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided infraclavicular axillary vein cannulation for centrally inserted central catheter placement in critically ill patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Introduction of ultrasound-guided axillary vein approach for central venous catheterization in severely injured trauma patients: characteristics and concerns.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- How to improve the efficiency and the safety of real-time ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization in 2023: a narrative review.Annals of intensive care · 2023Review
- Comparison of ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein and supraclavicular subclavian vein catheterization in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized clinical trial.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
- Alternative approaches to central venous cannulation in cardiac surgery.Annals of cardiac anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed at comparing the success rate and safety of proximal versus distal approach for ultrasound (US)-guided axillary vein catheterization (AVC) in cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding.
methodsIn this single-center randomized controlled trial, cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding and requiring AVC were randomized to either the proximal or distal approach group for US-guided AVC. Patients susceptible to bleeding were defined as those who received oral antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulants for at least 3 days. Success rate, catheterization time, number of attempts, and mechanical complications within 24 h were recorded for each procedure.
resultsA total of 198 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients each to the proximal and distal groups. The proximal group had the higher first puncture success rate (75.8% vs. 51.5%, p < 0.001) and site success rate (93.9% vs. 83.8%, p = 0.04) than the distal group. However, the overall success rates between the two groups were similar (99.0% vs. 99.0%; p = 1.00). Moreover, the proximal group had fewer average number of attempts (p < 0.01), less access time (p < 0.001), and less successful cannulation time (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups, such as major bleeding, minor bleeding, arterial puncture, pneumothorax, nerve injuries, and catheter misplacements.
conclusionsFor cardiac surgery patients susceptible to bleeding, both proximal and distal approaches for US-guided AVC can be considered as feasible and safe methods of central venous cannulation. In terms of the first puncture success rate and cannulation time, the proximal approach is superior to the distal approach. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03395691. Registered January 10, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03395691?cond=NCT03395691&draw=1&rank=1 .
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.