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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Cited by
Pneumothorax Following Thoracentesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Gordon, C. E. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.548 · Cited by 306
Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence
Vescia, S., Baumgärtner, A. K., Jacobs, V. R., Kiechle-Bahat, M., Rody, A., Loibl, S., & Harbeck, N. (2008) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm272 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.