Cited by 476Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsVascular Procedures and Complications

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for internal jugular vein catheterization

Open access
Brass, Patrick, Hellmich, Martin, Kolodziej, Laurentius, Schick, Guido, Smith, Andrew F·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) can help with diagnosis and treatment of the critically ill. The catheter may be placed in a large vein in the neck (internal jugular vein), upper chest (subclavian vein) or groin (femoral vein). Whilst this is beneficial overall, inserting the catheter risks arterial puncture and other complications and should be performed with as few attempts as possible. Traditionally, anatomical 'landmarks' on the body surface were used to find the correct place in which to insert catheters, but ultrasound imaging is now available. A Doppler mode is sometimes used to supplement plain 'two-dimensional' ultrasound. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two-dimensional (imaging ultrasound (US) or ultrasound Doppler (USD)) guided puncture techniques for insertion of central venous catheters via the internal jugular vein in adults and children. We assessed whether there was a difference in complication rates between traditional landmark-guided and any ultrasound-guided central vein puncture.Our secondary objectives were to assess whether the effect differs between US and USD; whether the effect differs between ultrasound used throughout the puncture ('direct') and ultrasound used only to identify and mark the vein before the start of the puncture procedure (indirect'); and whether the effect differs between different groups of patients or between different levels of experience among those inserting the catheters. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 15 January 2013), EMBASE (1966 to 15 January 2013), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 15 January 2013 ), reference lists of articles, 'grey literature' and dissertations. An additional handsearch focused on intensive care and anaesthesia journals and abstracts and proceedings of scientific meetings. We attempted to identify unpublished or ongoing studies by contacting companies and experts in the field, and we searched trial registers. We reran the search in August 2014. We will deal with identified studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing two-dimensional ultrasound or Doppler ultrasound with an anatomical 'landmark' technique during insertion of internal jugular venous catheters in both adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest using a standardized form. A priori, we aimed to perform subgroup analyses, when possible, for adults and children, and for experienced operators and inexperienced operators. MAIN RESULTS: Of 735 identified citations, 35 studies enrolling 5108 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was very low for most of the outcomes and was moderate at best for four of the outcomes. Most trials had an unclear risk of bias across the six domains, and heterogeneity among the studies was significant.Use of two-dimensional ultrasound reduced the rate of total complications overall by 71% (14 trials, 2406 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.52; P value < 0.0001, I² = 57%), and the number of participants with an inadvertent arterial puncture by 72% (22 trials, 4388 participants, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44; P value < 0.00001, I² = 35%). Overall success rates were modestly increased in all groups combined at 12% (23 trials, 4340 participants, RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.17; P value < 0.00001, I² = 85%), and similar benefit was noted across all subgroups. The number of attempts needed for successful cannulation was decreased overall (16 trials, 3302 participants, mean difference (MD) -1.19 attempts, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.92; P value < 0.00001, I² = 96%) and in all subgroups. Use of two-dimensional ultrasound increased the chance of success at the first attempt by 57% (18 trials, 2681 participants, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.82; P value < 0.00001, I² = 82%) and reduced the chance of haematoma formation (overall reduction 73%, 13 trials, 3233 participants, RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.55; P value 0.0004, I² = 54%). Use of two-dimensional ultrasound decreased the time to successful cannulation by 30.52 seconds (MD -30.52 seconds, 95% CI -55.21 to -5.82; P value 0.02, I² = 97%). Additional data are available to support use of ultrasound during, not simply before, line insertion.Use of Doppler ultrasound increased the chance of success at the first attempt by 58% (four trials, 199 participants, RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43; P value 0.04, I² = 57%). No evidence showed a difference for the total numbers of perioperative and postoperative complications/adverse events (three trials, 93 participants, RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.71; P value 0.28), the overall success rate (s

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006962.pub2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence compiled in this review indicates higher first-pass success rates, fewer attempts, faster placement times, and reduced complication rates when ultrasound pre-measurement and real-time guidance are used compared to traditional landmark techniques.

    “The evidence compiled in this review indicates higher first-pass success rates, fewer attempts, faster placement times, and reduced complication rates when ultrasound pre-measurement and real-time guidance are used compared to traditional landmark techniques [ 2 – 5 , 13 ].”

    From Ultrasound vessel sizing before cannulation: a measurement-first approach for anesthesiologists (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion’s Summary of main results (page unavailable) reports that two-dimensional ultrasound improved first-attempt success, reduced attempts and total complications, and shortened cannulation time compared with landmark techniques. But it says more data support ultrasound during insertion than ultrasound used only beforehand; the claim does not distinguish the strength of evidence for pre-measurement and real-time guidance. The review also notes that some subgroup outcomes remain unclear. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Real-time ultrasound guidance is the standard of care for internal jugular vein cannulation and reduces failed attempts and mechanical complications compared to landmark techniques.

    “Real-time ultrasound guidance is the standard of care for IJV cannulation and has been shown to reduce failed attempts and mechanical complications compared to landmark techniques [ 13 ].”

    From Ultrasound vessel sizing before cannulation: a measurement-first approach for anesthesiologists (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Authors’ Conclusions (Implications for practice; page unavailable) report fewer complications, fewer attempts and greater first-attempt success with two-dimensional ultrasound for internal jugular vein cannulation; the review also says evidence favors ultrasound used during insertion. The review does not establish the categorical claim that real-time ultrasound is the standard of care: it cautions that evidence quality was very low for most outcomes and that landmark skills remain necessary when ultrasound is unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pre-measuring the vein's diameter via ultrasound at the intended puncture site can help in choosing between catheter sizes, such as a 7 Fr versus 8.5 Fr introducer for a large-bore central line.

    “Pre-measuring the vein’s diameter via US at the intended puncture site can help in choosing between catheter sizes (e.g. deciding between a 7 Fr vs 8.5 Fr introducer for a large-bore central line) [ 7 , 13 ].”

    From Ultrasound vessel sizing before cannulation: a measurement-first approach for anesthesiologists (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    In “How the intervention might work” (page unavailable), the review says ultrasound can assess a target vein’s diameter before puncture and that catheter diameter should not exceed one-third of the vein’s internal diameter. This supports considering vein size when planning catheterization, but the passage recommends another vessel if the catheter is too large; it does not discuss choosing between 7 Fr and 8.5 Fr introducers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 140 · Cited by 476

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]5. Cochrane Library Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews physicians. Journal of Critical Care 2005;20(3):224-9. [PUBMED: 16253790]

Authors
Brass, P., Hellmich, M., Kolodziej, L., Schick, G., & Smith, A. F.
Affiliations
  • Witten/Herdecke University (DE)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Ruhrlandklinik (DE)
  • Medizinisches Zentrum StädteRegion Aachen; Klinik für Anästhesie, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin; Mauerfeldchen 25 Würselen Germany
  • Royal Lancaster Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-09
Volume
2018
Issue
12
Pages
CD006962-CD006962
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2163950154
Cited by
476
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 18
FWCI
10.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (10/4001/04)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
Keywords
ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization, internal jugular vein, anatomical landmark technique, Doppler ultrasound, two-dimensional ultrasound, arterial puncture, central venous catheter complications, puncture success rate, critically ill patients, children, catheter insertion technique, subclavian vein catheterization, femoral vein catheterization
MeSH terms
Adult, Catheterization, Central Venous, Child, Humans, Jugular Veins, Punctures, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Ultrasonography, Interventional, Anatomic Landmarks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review