Oblique approach for ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization vs transverse and longitudinal approaches, a randomized trial

Short-axis versus long-axis approach for ultrasound-guided vascular access: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background and Aims

There are two approaches for ultrasound (US)-guided vessel cannulation: the short axis (SA) approach and the long axis (LA) approach. However, it remains to be seen which approach is better. Therefore, we performed the present updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of US-guided vascular cannulation between the SA and LA techniques.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive electronic database search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for the relevant studies from inception to June 2022. Randomised controlled trials comparing the SA approach and the LA approach for US-guided vascular access were incorporated in this updated meta-analysis. The first-attempt success rate was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the overall success rate, cannulation time, number of attempts and the incidence of complications. The statistical analysis was conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4; the Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate each study's potential risk for bias.

Results

In total, 16 studies consisting of 1885 participants were incorporated in this updated meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference was found between the SA and LA vascular access techniques for first-pass success rate (risk ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.22). The overall cannulation success rate, complication rate, average cannulation time and average number of attempts were not significantly different between the SA and LA groups.

Conclusion

This updated meta-analysis demonstrated that the SA and LA approaches of US-guided vessel cannulation are similar regarding first-pass success, overall cannulation success rate, total complication rate, cannulation time and the number of attempts.

Comparison between the long-axis in-plane and short-axis out-of-plane approaches for ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The two most common methods for ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation are the long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) and short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) approaches. However, it is uncertain which method is more advantageous. We conducted a meta-analysis of reported randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the two techniques in terms of success rate, cannulation time, and complications.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database for RCTs comparing the LA-IP and SA-OOP techniques for ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation published from inception through April 31, 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of each RCT. Review Manager 5.4 and Stata/SE 17.0 were used to analyze the two primary outcome measures (first-attempt success rate and total success rate) and two secondary outcome measures (cannulation time and complications).

RESULTS

A total of 13 RCTs with 1,377 patients were included. There were no significant differences in first-attempt success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.12; P = 0.45; I² = 84%) and overall success rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; P = 0.48; I² = 57%). When compared with the LA-IP technique, the SA-OOP technique was associated with an increased incidence of posterior wall puncture (RR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.27-7.14; P = 0.01; I² = 79%) and hematoma (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.05-4.37; P = 0.04; I² = 63%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of vasospasm between techniques (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.37-4.23; P = 0.07; I² = 53%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that the SA-OOP technique is associated with a higher incidence of posterior wall puncture and hematoma than the LA-IP technique, whereas success rates are similar for the two ultrasound-guided arterial cannulation techniques. These findings should be experimentally evaluated in a more rigorous manner due to high inter-RCT heterogeneity.

Biplanar versus conventional two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterisation

Background

Ultrasound guidance increases first-pass success rates and decreases the number of cannulation attempts and complications during radial artery catheterisation but it is debatable whether short-, long-, or oblique-axis imaging is superior for obtaining access. Three-dimensional (3D) biplanar ultrasound combines both short- and long-axis views with their respective benefits. This study aimed to determine whether biplanar imaging would improve the accuracy of radial artery catheterisation compared with conventional 2D imaging.

Methods

This before-and-after trial included adult patients who required radial artery catheterisation for elective cardiothoracic surgery. The participating anaesthesiologists were experienced in 2D and biplanar ultrasound-guided vascular access. The primary endpoint was successful catheterisation in one skin break without withdrawals. Secondary endpoints were the numbers of punctures and withdrawals, scanning and procedure times, needle visibility, perceived mental effort of the operator, and posterior wall puncture or other mechanical complications.

Results

From November 2021 until April 2022, 158 patients were included and analysed (2D=75, biplanar=83), with two failures to catheterise in each group. First-pass success without needle redirections was 58.7% in the 2D group and 60.2% in the biplanar group (difference=1.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -14.0%-17.1%; P=0.84), and first-pass success within one skin break was 77.3% in the 2D group vs 81.9% in the biplanar group (difference=4.6%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.3%; P=0.473). None of the secondary endpoints differed significantly.

Conclusions

Biplanar ultrasound guidance did not improve success rates nor other performance measures of radial artery catheterisation. The additional visual information acquired with biplanar imaging did not offer any benefit.

Clinical trial registration

N9687 (Dutch Trial Register).

Comparison of out-of-plane short axis with in-plane long axis for ultrasound-guided radial arterial cannulation: A systematic review with trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background

It is controversial whether the short-axis out-of-plane or long-axis in-plane approach is a better needling technique for ultrasound-guidance radial artery cannulation. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the two approaches for ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation.

Methods

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant articles published until 1 May 2021 was conducted. Randomised controlled trials comparing the long-axis in-plane with short-axis out-of-plane approaches were included. Review Manager software version 5.4, STATA version 14.2, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) version 0.9.5.10 Beta were used for statistical analysis. Risk of bias and methodological quality of all studies included in this review were assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.

Results

The rate of cannula insertion success on the first attempt was similar between the short-axis out-of-plane and long-axis in-plane approaches (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.28; P = 0.79; I ² = 83.0%). No significant differences were observed in total time to successful cannulation between the two approaches (MD = -3.9; 95% CI:-18.30 to 10.49; P = 0.6; I ² = 97%). However, the required information size for the success rate of the first attempt and total time to successful cannulation was not reached.

Conclusion

It remains inconclusive whether short-axis out-of-plane is a better choice for radial arterial cannulation than the long-axis in-plane approach. Inexperienced operators may need more attempts and longer ultrasound location time with the short-axis out-of-plane technique.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021236098].

Ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults

BACKGROUND

Arterial vascular access is a frequently performed procedure, with a high possibility for adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax, haemothorax, haematoma, amputation, death), and additional techniques such as ultrasound may be useful for improving outcomes. However, ultrasound guidance for arterial access in adults is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL on 21 May 2021. We also searched IBECS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 June 2021, and we checked the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials and cluster-RCTs, comparing ultrasound guidance, alone or associated with other forms of guidance, versus other interventions or palpation and landmarks for arterial (other than femoral) guidance in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 studies (7997 participants) that tested palpation and landmarks, Doppler auditory ultrasound assistance (DUA), direct ultrasound guidance with B-mode, or any other modified ultrasound technique for arterial (axillary, dorsalis pedis, and radial) catheterisation in adults. Radial artery Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 1.61; 4708 participants, 27 studies; low-certainty evidence) and overall success rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16; 4955 participants, 28 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may decrease time needed for a successful procedure (mean difference (MD) -0.33 minutes, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13; 4902 participants, 26 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to palpation and landmarks. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; 2504 participants, 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on pseudoaneurysm, pain, and quality of life (QoL) compared to palpation and landmarks (very low-certainty evidence). Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus DUA One study (493 participants) showed that real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably improves first attempt success rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64; moderate-certainty evidence) and time needed for a successful procedure (MD -1.57 minutes, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.36; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve overall success rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus modified real-time B-mode ultrasound Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may decrease first attempt success rate (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), may decrease overall success rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may lead to no difference in time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.04 minutes, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance. It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on major haematomas compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. In-plane versus out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound In-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may lead to no difference in overall success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1051 participants, 8 studies; low-certainty evidence) and in time needed for a successful procedure (MD -0.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 1134 participants, 9 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound up to one hour. It is uncertain whether in-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate or major haematomas compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. DUA versus palpation and landmarks DUA may lead to no difference in first attempt success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or overall success rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.45 minutes, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 500 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to palpation and landmarks. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Oblique-axis versus long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound Oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance may increase overall success rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53; 215 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. It is uncertain whether oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate, time needed for a successful procedure, and major haematomas compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. We are uncertain about effects in the following comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes: real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks (axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries), real-time B-mode ultrasound versus near-infrared laser (radial artery), and dynamic versus static out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (radial artery).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate, overall success rate, and time needed for a successful procedure for radial artery catheterisation compared to palpation, or DUA. In addition, real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas compared to palpation. However, we are uncertain about the evidence on major haematomas and pain for other comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes. We are also uncertain about the effects on pseudoaneurysm and QoL for axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries catheterisation. Given that first attempt success rate and pseudoaneurysm are the most relevant outcomes for people who underwent arterial catheterisation, future studies must measure both. Future trials must be large enough to detect effects, use validated scales, and report longer-term follow-up.

Effect of wrist dorsiflexion on ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterisation using dynamic needle tip positioning technique in adult patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

It is generally recommended to keep the wrist joint mildly dorsiflexed during radial artery catheterisation. However, wrist dorsiflexion might decrease the success rate of radial artery catheterisation with dynamic needle tip positioning technique. Therefore, we assessed the success rates of two groups with or without wrist dorsiflexion by 5 cm wrist elevation in adult patients.

METHODS

This randomised controlled clinical trial was performed between March and December 2018 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, China. We recruited 120 adult patients undergoing major surgical procedures and randomly allocated them into two groups: dorsiflexion group (group D) and neutral group (group N). The primary outcome was first-attempt success rates of two groups. Secondary outcomes were overall success rates within 5 min; numbers of insertion and cannulation attempts; overall catheterisation time; duration of localisation, insertion and cannulation; and complication rates of catheterisation.

RESULTS

First-attempt success rate was 88.3% in group D and 81.7% in group N (p=0.444). The overall success rate within 5 min was 93.3% in group D compared with 90.0% in group N (p=0.743). Numbers of insertion and cannulation attempts, overall catheterisation time, duration of localisation and insertion, and complication rates did not show a significant difference between the two groups. Cannulation time was longer in group N (35.68 s) than that in group D (26.19 s; p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist dorsiflexion may not be a necessity for ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterisation using dynamic needle tip positioning technique in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1800015262.

Dynamic needle tip positioning versus the angle-distance technique for ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation in adults: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Ultrasound guidance can increase the success rate and reduce the incidence of complications of arterial cannulation. There are few studies on the utility of the dynamic needle tip positioning (DNTP) technique versus the angle-distance (AD) technique for ultrasound-guided radial arterial cannulation in adult surgical patients. We assessed and compared the success rates and incidences of complications of these two short-axis out-of-plane techniques.

Methods

A total of 131 adult surgical patients were randomized into DNTP and AD groups to undergo ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation. The primary outcome was first-pass success without posterior wall puncture. The secondary outcomes included the first-pass success rate, 10-min overall success rate, cannulation time, posterior wall puncture, and the number of skin punctures.

Results

The first-pass success rates without posterior wall puncture were 53.8% in the DNTP group and 44.6% in the AD group (RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.86–1.72; P = 0.26). The cannulation time was significantly longer (P = 0.01) in the DNTP group [79.65 (54.3–109.4) seconds] than in the AD group [47.6 (24.9–103.8) seconds]. The posterior wall puncture rate was significantly lower (P = 0.002) in the DNTP group (29.2%) than in the AD group (56.1%; RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42–0.82).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in the first-pass success rate, with or without arterial posterior wall puncture, or in the 10-min overall success rate between the DNTP and AD groups. However, the cannulation time was longer and the posterior wall puncture rate was lower in the DNTP group.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (No: NCT03656978). Registered 4 September 2018.

Comparison of Mill Suss™-guided radial artery catheterization with the long-axis in-plane ultrasound-guided method under general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Continuous arterial blood pressure measurement is an effective perioperative monitoring method in patients with high-risk comorbidities. Recently, ultrasound guidance has been reported to facilitate radial artery catheterization. A new device, Mill Suss™, has also been developed for visualization of the radial artery and superficial veins using near-infrared laser light. In this study, we hypothesized that the Mill Suss-guided method might reduce the time and the number of attempts required for radial artery catheterization under general anesthesia, as compared to the long-axis in-plane ultrasound-guided method. Seventy-two adult patients aged 20-80 years, ASA physical status I or II, were randomly assigned to the Mill Suss-guided group (Group M: n = 36) or ultrasound-guided group (Group U: n = 36). Primary outcomes were the time required for successful radial artery catheterization and the number of cannulation attempts. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of patients between the two groups. The time required for successful radial artery catheterization was significantly shorter in Group M than in Group U. The number of attempts for successful cannulation was not statistically significantly different between the two groups. However, the results might be different among anesthesiologists well experienced in the ultrasound-guided method.

Ultrasound guidance in difficult radial artery puncture for blood gas analysis: A prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background

Ultrasound (US) guidance has yet to prove its applicability in radial arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) punctures. The main objective of our study was to compare the number of first-attempt successes (NFAS) for radial arterial puncture in difficult patients with or without US guidance. The Secondary aims were to compare the number of punctures (NOP), puncture time, and patient pain.

Methods

In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients who required a radial ABGA and in whom the arterial puncture was assessed as difficult (because of non-palpable radial arteries or two previous puncture failures by a nurse) were assigned to the US group or no-US (NUS) group (procedure performed by a trained physician).

Results

Thirty-six patients were included in the US group and 37 in the NUS groups. The NFAS was 7 (19%) in the NUS group and 19 (53%) in the US group. The relative risk of success in the US group was 2.79 (95% CI,1.34 to 5.82), p = 0.01. In the NUS and US groups, respectively, the median NOP was 3 [2; 6] vs. 1 [1; 2], estimated difference −2.0 (95%CI, −3.4 to −0.6), p < 0.01; the respective puncture time was 3.1 [1.6; 5.4] vs. 1.4 [0.6; 3.1] min, estimated difference −1.45 (95%CI, −2.57 to −0.39), p = 0.01; the respective median patient pain was 6 [4; 8] vs. 2 [1; 4], estimated difference −4.0 (95%CI, −5.8 to −2.3); p < 0.01.

Conclusion

US guidance by a trained physician significantly improves the rate of success in difficult radial ABGA patients.

Comparison between the long-axis/in-plane and short-axis/out-of-plane approaches for ultrasound-guided vascular catheterization: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

A long-axis in-plane (LA-IP) approach and a short-axis out-of-plane (SA-OOP) approach are the two main approaches used in ultrasound (US)-guided vascular catheterization. However, the efficacy and safety of these approaches remain controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the two techniques in vascular catheterization.

Materials and methods

Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception until August 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing a long-axis approach with a short-axis approach for US-guided vascular cannulation were selected. The RevMan software was used to analyze the results, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was further applied to determine whether the currently available evidence was sufficient and conclusive.

Results

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1,210 patients were included. The total success rate was similar between the SA-OOP and LA-IP approaches for US-guided vascular catheterization (risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99–1.04; P=0.35; I²=48%). In the radial artery (RA; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96–1.05; P=0.88; I²=49%) and internal jugular vein (IJV; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02; P=0.99; I²=0%) subgroups, the total success rate was also similar and was confirmed by the TSA. For populations with subclavian vein (SCV) and axillary vein catheterization, the SA-OOP approach showed a benefit for first-attempt success rate. No significant differences in first-attempt success rate, cannulation times, or complications were found between the two approaches.

Conclusion

Despite a similar total success rate between the SA-OOP approach and the LA-IP approach when used for RA and IJV catheterization (as confirmed by TSA), further robust well-designed trials are warranted to evaluate other outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to definitively state that the SA-OOP approach was superior to the LA-IP approach when used for SCV and axillary vein catheterization. High-quality trials are needed to confirm or refute this finding.