Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 626

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Complications and Failures of Subclavian-Vein Catheterization

·1995·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although catheterization of the subclavian vein is a common procedure, the risk factors for complications and failures, with the exception of the physician's experience, are poorly understood. Ultrasonography has been recommended to help guide the placement of central venous catheters. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized trial of ultrasound-guided location of the subclavian vein as compared with standard insertion procedures. In the group of patients undergoing catheterization with ultrasound guidance, the site of the insertion was marked before the catheterization attempt; real-time ultrasound guidance was not used. The 821 eligible patients (411 in the ultrasound group and 410 in the control group) underwent catheterization in a single procedure suite under controlled nonemergency conditions, in most cases for the administration of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Ultrasound guidance had no effect on the rate of complications or failures of subclavian-vein catheterization (risk ratio for complications, 1.00; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.52; risk ratio for failures, 1.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.50). In multivariate analyses, prior major surgery in the region (P = 0.002), a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) higher than 30 or lower than 20 (P = 0.009), and previous catheterization (P = 0.043) were associated with failed attempts. Complications were also associated with failed attempts: 52 of the 721 patients (7.2 percent) in whom catheterization was successful had complications, as compared with 28 of the 100 patients (28 percent) in whom physicians were unable to place catheters. The number of needle passes was strongly associated with the rates of failure and complications. The complication rate rose from 4.3 percent with one pass to 24.0 percent with more than two passes. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance of subclavian-vein catheterization, as used in this study, was not beneficial. In patients at highest risk for complications and failures, catheterization should be attempted by the most experienced physicians available.

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejm199506083322313

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 626

Metadata

Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1995-06-08
Volume
332
Issue
23
Pages
1579-1581
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2314260034
Cited by
626
References
1
FWCI
31.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complications and Failures of Subclavian-Vein Catheterization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199506083322313
The paper
Complications and Failures of Subclavian-Vein Catheterization. (1995). New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199506083322313

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.