Cited by 109Vascular Procedures and ComplicationsCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisUltrasound in Clinical Applications

Ultrasound Guidance Facilitates Radial Artery Catheterization

Gu, Wan-Jie, Wu, Xiang-Dong, Wang, Fei, Ma, Zheng-Liang, Gu, Xiao-Ping·2016·Chest

Abstract

Background Potential benefits and possible risks associated with ultrasound guidance compared with traditional palpation for radial artery catheterization are not fully understood.Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2015 to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated ultrasound guidance compared with traditional palpation for radial artery catheterization. Primary outcome was first-attempt failure. Secondary outcomes included mean attempts to success, mean time to success, and hematoma complications. A random-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs.Results Twelve trials used dynamic two-dimensional (2-D) ultrasound guidance (N = 1,992) and two used Doppler ultrasound guidance (N = 666). Compared with traditional palpation, dynamic 2-D ultrasound guidance was associated with a reduced first-attempt failure (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit establishing sufficient and conclusive evidence. Dynamic 2-D ultrasound guidance further reduced mean attempts to success, mean time to success, and hematoma complications. No evidence of publication bias was detected. Compared with traditional palpation, Doppler ultrasound guidance had no benefit on first-attempt failure (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15), which was confirmed by trial sequential analysis as the cumulative z curve entered the futility area.Conclusions The use of dynamic 2-D ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterization decreases first-attempt failure, mean attempts to success, mean time to success, and the occurrence of hematoma complications. Dynamic 2-D ultrasound guidance is recommended as an adjunct to aid radial arterial catheterization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.15-1784

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 109

Authors
Gu, W.-J., Wu, X.-D., Wang, F., Ma, Z.-L., & Gu, X.-P.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (CN)
  • General Hospital of Jinan Military Command (CN)
Corresponding author
Ma, Zheng-Liang
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
149
Issue
1
Pages
166-179
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2202539871
Cited by
109
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
  • 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
Keywords
radial artery catheterization, ultrasound guidance, Doppler ultrasound, palpation, hematoma complications, vascular access, trial sequential analysis
MeSH terms
Catheterization, Peripheral, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Radial Artery, Ultrasonography, Interventional

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