Why the study?
Does internal jugular vein catheterization compared to external jugular vein catheterization improve success rates and affect complication rates in patients requiring central venous cannulation?
Does internal jugular vein catheterization compared to external jugular vein catheterization improve success rates and affect complication rates in patients requiring central venous cannulation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Internal jugular vein cannulation offers a higher success rate than the external jugular route but carries a higher risk of complications, which can be mitigated by using a scout needle and guide-wire technique.
To compare the rate of success and incidence of complications associated with two currently popular routes of percutaneous central venous cannulation, we studied 167 patient in whom either internal or external jugular vein catheterization was attempted. Internal jugular vein (IJV) catheterization (125 patients) was successful in 91%; an intrathoracic location was achieved in 100%; complications occurred in 12.8%. Complications included one case of catheter malposition, one case of tension pneumothorax, and 12 instances of inadvertent carotid artery puncture, one resulting in a paratracheal hematoma and phrenic nerve compression. The success rate of IJV cannulation was higher and carotid artery puncture less frequent when an 18-gauge thin-walled needle and a straight guide-wire were used than when IJV cannulation was performed by bind puncture with a larger over-the-needle catheter. Delayed vein perforation occurred twice. External jugular vein cannulation (42 patients), using a "J" wire technique, yielded a 76% success rate: 93.7% of catheter tips reached an intrathoracic location. No complications occurred. We conclude that IJV cannulation is a more reliable means of percutaneous central venous line placement but is associated with a significant incidence of complications which can be reduced if a technique employing a scout needle and guide-wire is used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Belani et al. (1981) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: