Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2023
Single-plane versus real-time biplane approaches for ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization in critical care patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06315803 (Randomized Controlled Clinical Study to Validate the Clinical Accuracy and Safety of Biplanar Ultrasound-guided Puncture of Lumbar Interforamen in Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Randomized Controlled Clinical Study to Validate the Clinical Accuracy and Safety of Biplanar Ultrasound-guided Puncture of Lumbar Interforamen in Adults
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the novel simultaneous biplane versus in-plane imaging technique in ultrasound-guided biopsy: a prospective randomized multi-operator cross-over phantom study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Trial
- Real-Time Biplane Versus Single-Plane US-guided Hip Joint Injection: A Single-Center Prospective Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical care patients often require central venous cannulation (CVC). We hypothesized that real-time biplane ultrasound-guided CVC would improve first-puncture success rate and reduce mechanical complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the success rate and safety of single-plane and real-time biplane approaches for ultrasound-guided CVC.
methodsFrom October 2022 to March 2023, 256 participants with critical illness requiring CVC were randomized to either the single-plane (n = 128) or biplane (n = 128) ultrasound-guided cannulation groups. The success rate, number of punctures, procedure duration, incidence of catheterization-related complications, and confidence score of operators were documented.
resultsThe central vein was successfully cannulated in all 256 participants (163 [64%] man and 93 [36%] women; mean age 69 ± 19 [range 13-104 years]), including 182 and 74 who underwent internal jugular vein cannulation (IJVC) and femoral vein cannulation (FVC), respectively. The incidence of successful puncture on the first attempt was higher in the biplane group than that in the single-plane group (91.6% vs. 74.7%; relative risk (RR), 1.226; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.069-1.405; P = 0.002 for the IJVC and 90.9% vs. 68.3%; RR, 1.331; 95% CI, 1.053-1.684; P = 0.019 for the FVC). The biplane group was also associated with a higher first-puncture single-pass catheterization success rate (87.4% vs. 69.0% and 90.9% vs. 68.3%), fewer undesired punctures (1[1-1(1-2)] vs. 1[1-2(1-4)] and 1[1-1(1-3)] vs. 1[1-2(1-4)]), shorter cannulation time (205 s [162-283 (66-1,526)] vs. 311 s [243-401 (136-1,223)] and 228 s [193-306 (66-1,669)] vs. 340 s [246-499 (130-944)]), and fewer immediate complications (10.5% vs. 28.7% and 9.1% vs. 34.1%) for both IJVC and FVC (all P < 0.05).
conclusionReal-time biplane imaging of ultrasound-guided CVCs offers advantages over the single-plane approach for critically ill patients.
trial registrationThis prospective RCT was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200064843). Registered 19 October 2022.
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.