Ultrasound Guidance Facilitates Radial Artery Catheterization
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Ultrasound guidance may increase first attempt success rate and decrease complication rate.
“Ultrasound guidance may increase the first attempt success rate and decrease the complication rate [382, 383].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [383]
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