{"title":"Comparative evaluation between external jugular and internal jugular venous catheterization through landmark technique.","authors":"Hitesh Khanna, Sachin Shouche, Shalendra Singh","doi":"10.1177/17504589231154360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cannulation of a central vein is crucial in patients for hemodynamic management and when insertion of a peripheral line is not possible. The internal jugular vein is the preferred access site; however, in the case of not being accessible, the second cannulation site of choice is still unclear. The study aimed to access the feasibility of external jugular vein cannulation versus internal jugular vein cannulation in terms of success, cannulation time, number of attempts and complications.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomised double-blinded study, 100 patients received 7Fr size triple-lumen central vein catheter either in the internal jugular vein (n = 50) or external jugular vein (n = 50) through the landmark technique as a part of anaesthetic care in the operation theatre. The number of attempts, cannulation time and incidence of complications in both the techniques were observed and recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The success rate in internal jugular vein cannulation was 88%, while in the external jugular vein, it was 78% (p = 0.17). The external jugular vein cannulation was comparatively quicker in our study (p = 0.01). Similarly, elevated body mass index did not affect the success rate in the number of cannulations attempts in either group (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, the internal jugular vein group had a total of 20% and the external jugular vein group had 28% complications; however, the complications were more severe in the internal jugular vein group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anaesthetists should rethink alternate routes for the insertion of central vein cannulation. The external jugular cannulation route is one of them.</p>","PeriodicalId":35481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of perioperative practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of perioperative practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17504589231154360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cannulation of a central vein is crucial in patients for hemodynamic management and when insertion of a peripheral line is not possible. The internal jugular vein is the preferred access site; however, in the case of not being accessible, the second cannulation site of choice is still unclear. The study aimed to access the feasibility of external jugular vein cannulation versus internal jugular vein cannulation in terms of success, cannulation time, number of attempts and complications.
Materials and methods: In this prospective, randomised double-blinded study, 100 patients received 7Fr size triple-lumen central vein catheter either in the internal jugular vein (n = 50) or external jugular vein (n = 50) through the landmark technique as a part of anaesthetic care in the operation theatre. The number of attempts, cannulation time and incidence of complications in both the techniques were observed and recorded.
Results: The success rate in internal jugular vein cannulation was 88%, while in the external jugular vein, it was 78% (p = 0.17). The external jugular vein cannulation was comparatively quicker in our study (p = 0.01). Similarly, elevated body mass index did not affect the success rate in the number of cannulations attempts in either group (p = 0.08). In terms of complications, the internal jugular vein group had a total of 20% and the external jugular vein group had 28% complications; however, the complications were more severe in the internal jugular vein group.
Conclusion: Anaesthetists should rethink alternate routes for the insertion of central vein cannulation. The external jugular cannulation route is one of them.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Perioperative Practice (JPP) is the official journal of the Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP). It is an international, peer reviewed journal with a multidisciplinary ethos across all aspects of perioperative care. The overall aim of the journal is to improve patient safety through informing and developing practice. It is an informative professional journal which provides current evidence-based practice, clinical, management and educational developments for practitioners working in the perioperative environment. The journal promotes perioperative practice by publishing clinical research-based articles, literature reviews, topical discussions, advice on clinical issues, current news items and product information.