Abstract：Objective To compare the success rate of puncture and complications in subclavian vein puncture between modified puncture and traditional puncture, and explore a safer and more effective subclavian puncture method.Methods From June 2016 to June 2017, 200 patients (100 males and 100 females) who underwent subclavian vein catheterization were randomly divided into traditional group, modified group, traditional ultrasound group and modified ultrasound group 50 patients in each group. The traditional puncture method and modified puncture method, ultrasound-guided traditional puncture and ultrasound-guided were used to improve puncture line subclavian vein catheterization. The puncture success rate, puncture time, punctures frequency and related complications were compared between the 4 groups.Results (1) The successful rate of puncture assembly in the modified group was 98.0%(49/50) and the success rate of primary puncture was 90.0%(45/50), which were significantly higher than those in the traditional group [94.0%(47/50) and 64.0%(32/50), all P values＜0.05]. The puncture time was shorter than that of the traditional group (P＜0.05). The overall complication rate was lower than that of the traditional group (P＜0.05). (2) The successful rate of single puncture in the modified group, modified ultrasound group and traditional ultrasound group was higher than that in the traditional group (all P values＜0.01). (3) There was no significant difference in puncture time and puncture frequency between modified ultrasound group and traditional ultrasound group (all P values>0.05). Conclusions Ultrasound guided descending subclavian vein catheterization is safer, with high success rate and fewer complications, especially for patients with difficult puncture. The improved puncture method has obvious advantages over the traditional puncture in the clinical application of subclavian vein puncture, the puncture success rate is higher, less complications, it is worth promoting. Ultrasound guided descending subclavian vein catheterization success rate, less complications, more safe and efficient, especially for patients with puncture difficulties, there is an important clinical value.
谢景远, 刘永芳, 彭璇, 刘志刚, 孟庆涛, 夏中元. 改良穿刺法与传统穿刺法在锁骨下静脉穿刺术中应用效果的比较[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2018, 23(2): 143-146.
Xie Jingyuan, Liu Yongfang, Peng Xuan, Liu Zhigang, Meng Qingtao, Xia Zhongyuan. Comparison of the effects of modified puncture and traditional puncture on subclavian vein puncture. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2018, 23(2): 143-146.
Tagliari AP, Staub FL, Guimaräes JR, et al. Evaluation of three different techniques for insertion of totally implantable venous access device: A randomized clinical trial[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2015, 112(1): 56-59. DOI:10.1002/jso.23962
[2]
Thakur A, Kaur K, Lamba A, et al. Comparative evaluation of subclavian vein catheterisation using supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach[J]. Indian J Anaesth, 2014, 58(2): 160-164. DOI:10.4103/0019-5049.130818
Lavallée C, Ayoub C, Mansour A, et al. Subclavian and axillary vessel anatomy: a prospective observational ultrasound study[J]. Can J Anesth, 2018, 65(4): 350-359. DOI:10.1007/s12630-017-1032-8
Hu B, Hu M, Wang Y, et al. Simplifying subclavian vein cannulation using innovative landmarks: a radiologic, anatomic, and clinical study[J]. Adv Emerg Nurs J, 2012, 34(2): 170-176. DOI:10.1097/TME.0b013e318251cfe8
Orci LA, Meier RP, Morel P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous subclavian vein puncture versus surgical venous cutdown for the insertion of a totally implantable venous access device[J]. Br J Surg, 2014, 101(2): 8-16. DOI:10.1002/bjs.9276
Ribeiro RC, Abib SC, Aguiar AS, et al. Long-term complications in totally implantable venous access devices: randomized study comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein puncture[J]. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2012, 58(2): 274-277. DOI:10.1002/pbc.23220
[12]
Tsai YF, Ku YH, Chen SW, et al. Right- and left-subclavian vein port-a-cath systems: comparison of complications[J]. Eur Surg Res, 2012, 49(2): 66-72. DOI:10.1159/000339308
[13]
Srinivasan NM, Kumar A. Finding on a chest radiograph: A dangerous complication of subclavian vein cannulation[J]. Indian J Crit Care Med, 2010, 14(2): 95-96. DOI:10.4103/0972-5229.68225
[14]
Sauer W, Luft D, Risler T, et al. Significance of ultrasonics in the placement of a central venous catheter.[J]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1988, 113(37): 1423-1427. DOI:10.1055/s-2008-1067829
[15]
Tokumine J, Lefor AT, Yonei A, et al. Three-step method for ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2013, 110(3): 368-373. DOI:10.1093/bja/aes381
[16]
Kim SC, Gräff I, Sommer A, et al. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular central venous catheter tip positioning via the right subclavian vein using a microconvex probe[J]. J Vasc Access, 2016, 17(5): 435-439. DOI:10.5301/jva.5000518
[17]
Saranteas T, Koliantzaki I. Unusual position of J-guide wire during ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2016, 117(6): 833-834. DOI:10.1093/bja/aew372
2018, Vol. 23 
