ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Supraclavicular Versus Infraclavicular Approach With Regard to Right Subclavian Vein Catheterisation by Blind Approach.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background In settings where real-time ultrasonography (USG) is unavailable or delayed, landmark-guided central venous access remains essential. Anatomically, the right supraclavicular (SC) route offers a more direct course to the superior vena cava than the infraclavicular (IC) approach, which could shorten procedural time without increasing risk. Methods We conducted a prospective, single-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial in adult elective cardiac surgery patients (n=70; 35 per arm) comparing landmark-guided right subclavian venous catheterisation via SC versus IC approaches, using a standardised Seldinger technique. The primary outcome was total cannulation time. Secondary outcomes included access time, number of puncture attempts, observer-rated ease of guidewire/catheter passage, success rate and complications. Binary outcomes were analysed for all randomised patients; timing outcomes were assessed in procedures with complete records (n=62; SC: 32, IC: 30). Results SC significantly reduced procedure duration. The mean total cannulation time was 2.98±0.59 minutes (SC) versus 3.70±0.77 minutes (IC), with a mean difference of -0.72 minutes (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.07 to -0.37; p<0.001). The mean access time was 17.72±17.89 seconds (SC) versus 35.80±33.63 seconds (IC), with a mean difference of -18.1 seconds (95% CI: -32.0 to -4.2; p=0.012). The distribution of puncture attempts and observer-rated ease scores did not differ materially between groups. Overall success was high (94.3% SC versus 85.7% IC; Fisher's exact test; p=0.428). Complications were infrequent: subclavian arterial puncture occurred in 2/35 (SC) versus 5/35 (IC) (p=0.428); no pneumothorax, haemothorax, haematoma or catheter malposition was observed. Conclusions In adult cardiac surgical patients, the SC approach achieves faster landmark-guided right subclavian venous access than the approach, without detectable compromises in success or safety. These findings support routine competence with the SC technique when ultrasound cannot be used and justify larger multicentre trials powered for rare complications and operator-learning effects.
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.