Ultrasound-Guided Subclavian Vein Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although ultrasound guidance for subclavian vein catheterization has been well described, evidence for its use has not been comprehensively appraised. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ultrasound guidance of subclavian vein catheterization reduces catheterization failures and adverse events compared to the traditional "blind" landmark method. All forms of ultrasound were included (dynamic 2D ultrasound, static 2D ultrasound, and Doppler). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL (from inception to September 2014). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of ultrasound compared to landmark technique for subclavian catheterization in adult populations were considered. Outcomes of interest included safety and failure of catheterization. DATA EXTRACTION: Adverse event data were analyzed according to Peto's method and expressed as odd ratios and 95% CIs. Failure of catheterization was analyzed with inverse variance random effects modeling and expressed as risk ratios and 95% CI. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six hundred and one studies were reviewed and 10 met inclusion criteria (n = 2,168 participants). Six used dynamic 2D ultrasound (n = 719), one used static 2D ultrasound (n = 821), and three used Doppler-guided insertion techniques (n = 628). Overall complication rates were reduced with ultrasound use compared to the landmark group (odd ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.69). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that dynamic 2D ultrasound reduced inadvertent arterial puncture, pneumothorax, and hematoma formation. No difference in failure of catheterization was noted between the ultrasound group and the landmark method (risk ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.48-1.51). Subgroup analysis of dynamic 2D ultrasound demonstrated a significant decrease in failed catheterization (risk ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.06-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided subclavian catheterization reduced the frequency of adverse events compared with the landmark technique. Our findings support the use of dynamic 2D ultrasound for subclavian catheterization to reduce adverse events and failed catheterization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".