Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2026
Ultrasound guidance versus conventional technique for radial arterial puncture in patients with shock in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07362628 (Ultrasound Guidance Versus Conventional Technique for Radial Arterial Puncture in Patients With Shock in the Emergency Department), which is not on this 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.
Ultrasound Guidance Versus Conventional Technique for Radial Arterial Puncture in Patients With Shock in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of ultrasound (US) guidance for arterial blood gas sampling has not been shown in non-preselected emergency department patients; however, it has been shown to be useful in difficult cases. Obtaining an arterial blood gas sample from the radial artery may be more challenging in patients with shock due to the difficulty in palpating the radial artery. The primary objective of this study was to compare first-attempt success between ultrasound-guided radial artery puncture and the conventional palpation technique for arterial blood gas sampling in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with shock.
methodsThis single-center, prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial included patients aged 18 years and older who presented to the ED of a university hospital with shock between October 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025. Participants were randomized into two groups: an ultrasound (US) group and a palpation (non-US) group. The primary outcome of the study was first-attempt success. Secondary outcomes included the number of attempts until successful puncture, time to successful puncture, and the need for a rescue femoral artery puncture.
resultsOf 106 patients assessed for eligibility, six were excluded because informed consent could not be obtained. The final study population consisted of 100 patients (50 in each group). First-attempt success was 30 (60%; 95% CI, 46.2% to 72.4%) in the non-US group and 47 (94%; 95% CI, 83.8% to 97.9%) in the US group. The absolute difference between groups was 34% (95% CI, 17.9% to 48.4%; p < 0.001). The median time to successful puncture was 17.5 s [12–22.8] in the US group and 35 s [23.5–50.0] in the non-US group (p < 0.001). Procedure failure requiring rescue femoral artery puncture was 8 (16%) in the non-US group and 2 (4%) in the US group (p < 0.05). No procedure-related complications were observed.
conclusionsUltrasound guidance for radial artery blood gas sampling in patients with shock is associated with higher first-attempt success rates and shorter times to successful puncture and may be a beneficial approach in this patient population.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07362628, 23 January 2026.
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.