Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges in response to comments and criticisms, and the reader is directed to
The Cochrane Library for updated information on this topic.
Address correspondence to Kannaiyan Samuel Rabindranath,
MRCP, PhD, Renal Unit, New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton
WV10 0QP, UK. E-mail: ksrabi@yahoo.co.uk
2011 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
0272-6386/$36.00
doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.07.025
964
METHODS
Protocol and Registration
The protocol of this review was registered with the Cochrane
Renal Group.7
Search Strategy
Using sensitive Cochrane search methodology, searches were
performed in MEDLINE (1950 through July 2010), EMBASE
(1980 through July 2010), and Cochrane Central Register of
Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; through July 2010). The Cochrane
Renal Group Specialised Register also was searched. The following medical subject heading terms and text words were used:
ultrasound, hemodialysis, and central venous catheters. Trials were
considered without language restriction.
965
966
Time Period
Publication
Status
No. of
Patients
No. of
Catheters
Mean
Age (y)
60
60
40.95
13.3
Internal jugular
185
212
67.05
NR
80
80
67.50
242
250
NR
March-June 2004
Peer-reviewed
March 1996-December
1999
Conference
abstract
Koroglu,12 2006
Peer-reviewed
Kumwenda,13 2003
1997-2001
Conference
abstract
Clinical
Setting
Nontunneled
ESKD
NR
NR
Internal jugular
AKI
Not defined
NR
Internal jugular
Tunneled
ESKD
Site of Insertion
Type of Catheter
NR
Peer-reviewed
65
73
59.50
NR
Internal jugular
NR
NR
April-November 2008
Peer-reviewed
110
110
48.90
NR
Femoral
Nontunneled
NR
Zafar-Khan et al,16
1995
NR
Conference
abstract
45
45
NR
NR
Internal jugular
NR
NR
Not defined
Abbreviations: AKI, acute kidney injury; ESKD, end-stage kidney disease; NR, not reported.
Study
Adequate Sequence
Generation
Intention-to-Treat
Analysis
Incomplete Outcome
Data Addressed
Free of Selective
Reporting
Free From
Other Bias
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unclear
Adequate
Unclear
Unclear
Adequate
Unclear
Kumwenda,13 2003
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Unclear
Adequate
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
Rabindranath et al
Allocation
Concealment
Statistical Analysis
Treatment effects were summarized with the relative risk (RR)
measure and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous
outcomes and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous
outcomes. Estimates from individual RCTs were pooled using the
Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Heterogeneity of treatment effects between studies was formally tested using the Q
(heterogeneity 2) and I2 statistics. Analyses were performed using
Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.0; The Cochrane Collaboration, http://ims.cochrane.org/revman).
RESULTS
Search Yield
The search of electronic databases mentioned
identified 2,613 articles, of which 2,598 were excluded. Major reasons for exclusion were that selected studies were duplicate-citation nonrandomized studies or randomized trials with comparisons
or outcomes that were not relevant to this review
(Fig 1). Full-text assessment of 15 potentially eligible articles identified 7 eligible trials (830 catheters).10-16 Three trials were published in only
conference abstract form.11,13,16
Real-time USS guidance Landmark method
Study or Subgroup
Events
Total Weight
Total
Events
1.1.1 Studies published in peer-reviewed publications
Prabhu 2010
Nadig 1998
Korogolu 2006
Bansal 2005
Subtotal (95% CI)
1
0
0
0
55
36
40
30
161
11
13
1
2
Trial Characteristics
Table 1 lists the characteristics of the 7 RCTs
included in this review. Not all outcomes were analyzed or reported by each individual trial.
Risk of Bias
Risk of bias in the included trials is listed in Table
2. Sequence generation was adequate in 71% of
studies. Allocation concealment was unclear in 57%
and adequate in 43% of studies. Because of the nature
of the investigation, we did not expect insertion based
solely on anatomic landmarking of participants and
investigators. None of the studies reported insertion
based solely on anatomic landmarking of outcome
assessors. All studies analyzed results on an intentionto-treat basis. None of the included patients was lost
to follow-up.
Outcomes
Risk of Catheter Placement Failure
Ultrasound guidance was found to reduce the risk
of catheter placement failure significantly compared
with the landmark method (7 studies, 830 catheters;
RR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.37; Fig 2). There was no
significant heterogeneity between studies (2 1.79;
P 0.88; I2 0%).
Risk of Failure of Catheter Placement on First Attempt
55
37
40
30
162
30.6%
16.0%
12.3%
13.8%
72.7%
20
125
73
218
15.1%
12.2%
27.3%
380 100.0%
Risk Ratio
M-H, Random, 95% CI
27
Total events
1
Heterogeneity: Tau = 0.00; Chi = 1.31, df = 3 (P = 0.73); I = 0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.33 (P = 0.0009)
1.1.2 Studies published only as conference abstracts
Zafar-Khan 1995
Kumwenda 2003
Ibrik 2000
Subtotal (95% CI)
0
0
0
25
125
139
289
4
1
0
Total events
5
0
Heterogeneity: Tau = 0.00; Chi = 0.37, df = 1 (P = 0.54); I = 0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.68 (P = 0.09)
Total (95% CI)
450
Total events
32
1
Heterogeneity: Tau = 0.00; Chi = 1.79, df = 5 (P = 0.88); I = 0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.72 (P = 0.0002)
0.001
1000
0.1
1
10
Favours US guidance Favours Landmark method
Figure 2. Risk of catheter placement failure. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; US, ultrasound; USS,
ultrasound scan.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(6):964-970
967
Rabindranath et al
Table 3. Data for Attempts per Catheter Placement
Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance
Landmark Method
No. of
Catheters
No. of
Catheters
40
1.10
40
2.47
36
25
1.11
1.50
37
20
2.70
3.50
Study
Zafar-Khane et al,16
1995
Only 1 study reported this outcome in a metaanalyzable format.15 According to data from this
study, ultrasound guidance was associated with a
significantly smaller number of attempts per catheter
placement (1 trial, 110 catheters; mean difference,
0.35; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.16). See Table 3 for
data from other studies that have reported this outcome.12,14,16
Time Taken for Venous Cannulation
Ultrasound guidance was associated with significantly less time (minutes from skin anesthesia to
successful vein puncture) for successful vein puncture
from the time the skin was anaesthetized (1 trial, 73
catheters; mean difference, 1.40; 95% CI, 2.17 to
0.63).
DISCUSSION
Complications
Ultrasound guidance was associated with a significantly reduced risk of carotid artery
puncture (6 trials, 785 catheters; RR, 0.22; 95% CI,
0.06 to 0.81; Fig 3). Heterogeneity measures were
moderately significant (2 7.99; P 0.09; I2
50%). The Kumwenda13 2003 study contributed to
heterogeneity because it was the only study in which
catheters inserted using ultrasound guidance were
Arterial puncture
Study or Subgroup
Bansal 2005
Ibrik 2000
Korogolu 2006
Kumwenda 2003
Nadig 1998
Prabhu 2010
Total (95% CI)
30
139
40
125
36
55
4
6
14
3
0
6
425
Total events
7
33
Heterogeneity: Tau = 1.04; Chi = 7.99, df = 4 (P = 0.09); I = 50%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.28 (P = 0.02)
19.9%
360 100.0%
30
73
40
125
37
55
13.5%
25.6%
14.1%
26.9%
Risk Ratio
M-H, Random, 95% CI
0.1
1
10
0.002
500
Favours USS guidance Favours Landmark method
Figure 3. Risk of arterial puncture. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; USS, ultrasound scan.
968
Country
Year
Recommendation
USA
2006
Australia
2000
UK
2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the staff of the Cochrane Renal Group (Narelle Willis
and Gail Higgins) for assistance with the review and Drs Bansal,
Kumwenda, and Prabhu for responding to our requests for further
information about their studies.
Support: None.
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no
relevant financial interests.
REFERENCES
1. Ethier J, Mendelssohn DC, Elder SJ, et al. Vascular access
use and outcomes: an international perspective: results from the
Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2008;23:3219-3226.
2. McGee DC, Gould MJ. Preventing complications of central
venous catherization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1123-1133.
969
Rabindranath et al
3. Rosen M, Latto P, Ng S. Percutanous Central Venous Catheterisation. 2nd edition. London, UK: WB Saunders, 1992.
4. Denys BS, Uretsky BBF, Reddy FS. Ultrasound assisted
cannulation of the internal jugular veins. Circulation. 1990;
82(suppl 4).
5. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (UK). Central
venous cathetersultrasound locating devices: guidance. http://
www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11474/32461/32461.pdf. Accessed
September 20, 2011.
6. Mactier R, Hoenich N, Breen C. Clinical practice guidelines
hemodialysis. http://www.renal.org/guidelines/module3a.html#
VascularAccess. Accessed June 10, 2010.
7. Vaux EC, Shail R, Rabindranath KS. Ultrasound use for the
placement of haemodialysis catheters (protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD005279.
8. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality
of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the
QUOROM statement (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses).
Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900.
9. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical
evidence of bias (dimensions of methodological quality associated
with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials). JAMA.
1995;273:408-412.
10. Bansal R, Agarwal SK, Tiwari SC, Dash SC. A prospective
randomized study to compare ultrasound-guided with nonultrasound guided double lumen internal jugular catheter insertion
as a temporary hemodialysis access. Ren Fail. 2005;27:561-564.
11. Ibrik Ibrik O, Samon Gauscha R, Roca Tey R, Viladoms
Guerra J. Ultrasound-guided versus the landmark-guided technique for hemodialysis vascular access. Abstract presented at: 37th
970