Trial reportAnesthesia and analgesia2026
Ultrasound-Guided In-Plane Subclavian Vein Puncture versus Prior Ultrasound and Landmark Technique: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCentral venous catheterization (CVC) of the subclavian vein is a standard procedure in medicine. Ultrasound guidance is increasingly recommended to improve the success rates and reduce complications. This study compared the success rates and complications of ultrasound-guided microconvex in-plane subclavian puncture (MISP) with those of the landmark technique.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 101 patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the group MISP or the control group using the landmark technique after ultrasound prescan. The primary end point was an a priori defined composite risk score including puncture attempts, required time, posterior venous wall injury, arterial punctures, hematoma formation, hemo-, pneumothorax, and catheter mispositioning. The secondary and exploratory end points included success rates, complication rates, and procedural times. Comparisons between groups were performed using Student t test, χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test with a significance level of 0.05. Data are mean ± standard deviation [SD], frequencies (%) or 95% confidence interval [CI] [lower limit-upper limit]).
resultsThe mean ± SD composite risk score was significantly lower in the MISP group compared to control (6.4 ± 5.9 vs 11.6 ± 10.8; mean diff 5.21 [95% CI, 1.71-8.71], P = .028). The MISP technique demonstrated significantly higher as-treated overall success rates (86% [95% CI, 74.6%-93.9%] vs 71% [95% CI, 56.2%-82.5%], P = .046) and significantly reduced the risk of arterial punctures (1.9% [95% CI, 0.05%-10.45%] vs 12% [4.5%-24.3%], number needed to harm: 10 punctures, P = .047). One pneumothorax was noted in both groups (2% each). The mean procedural time was 5 minutes longer in the MISP group (P < .001).
conclusionsCompared with the landmark technique, the ultrasound-guided MISP technique significantly reduced the risk of complications. The extended procedural time may be justified by lower complication rates. Further studies should evaluate the implementation of the MISP technique as a standard approach for subclavian vein catheterization.
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.