ACA App
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia
Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Users online: 637 Small font size Default font size Increase font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 


 

 
     
    Advanced search
 

 
 
     
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1122    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded100    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 621-625
Comparison between marked versus unmarked introducer needle in real-time ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation: A prospective randomized study


1 Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, IIMS and R, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Critical Care Medicine, SGPGIMS, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission20-Feb-2016
Date of Acceptance18-Jul-2016
Date of Web Publication7-Oct-2016
 

   Abstract 


Introduction: Introducer needle tip is not clearly visible during the real-time ultrasound (US)-guided central vein cannulation (CVC). Blind tip leads to mechanical complications. This study was designed to evaluate whether real-time US-guided CVC with a marked introducer needle is superior to the existing unmarked needle. Methodology: Sixty-two critically ill patients aged 18–60 years of either sex were included in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups based on whether a marked or unmarked introducer needle was used. Both groups underwent real-time US-guided CVC by a single experienced operator. Aseptically, introducer needle was indented with markings spaced 0.5 cm (single marking) and every 1 cm (double marking). This needle was used in the marked group. Approximate depths (centimeter) of the anterior and posterior wall of the internal jugular vein, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura were appreciated from the midpoint of the probe in short-axis view at the level of the cricoid cartilage. Access time (seconds) was recorded using a stopwatch. A number of attempts and complications such as arterial puncture, hematoma, and pneumothorax of either procedure were compared. Results: Both marked needle and unmarked needle groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, severity scores, platelet counts, prothrombin time, and distance from the midpoint of the probe to the vein, artery, and pleura and skin-to-guide wire insertion access time. However, an average number of attempts (P = 0.03) and complications such as hematoma were significantly lower (P = 0.02) with the marked introducer needle group. Pneumothorax was not reported in any of the groups.Conclusion: Our study supports the idea that marked introducer needle can further reduce the iatrogenic complications of US-guided CVC.

Keywords: Central venous cannulation; Introducer needle; Ultrasound; Ultrasound education; Ultrasound-guided catheter insertion

How to cite this article:
Ghatak T, Singh RK, Baronia AK. Comparison between marked versus unmarked introducer needle in real-time ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation: A prospective randomized study. Ann Card Anaesth 2016;19:621-5

How to cite this URL:
Ghatak T, Singh RK, Baronia AK. Comparison between marked versus unmarked introducer needle in real-time ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation: A prospective randomized study. Ann Card Anaesth [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 16];19:621-5. Available from: http://www.annals.in/text.asp?2016/19/4/621/191563





   Introduction Top


Ultrasound (US) guidance is now the recommended practice in central venous cannulation (CVC).[1] Real-time, US guidance has been reported to have lesser access time (skin to vein puncture), higher success rate, and lower mechanical complications.[1],[2] However, even with US, mechanical complications (such as arterial puncture, hematoma, and pneumothorax) are still high (~4.6%).[3] The incidence of pneumothorax during real-time US-guided CVC is reported to be approximately 0.7%.[4] Furthermore, the incidence of carotid and posterior wall venous puncture has been reported to be about 20% and 64%, respectively, in US-guided CVC even in human simulators.[5]

The poor visualization of the introducer needle tip in US is the primary reason for these complications. This blind spot can often occur in real-time US guidance for CVC in both short (transverse) and long (longitudinal) axis during needle advancement toward anticipated vein. To circumvent this, we incorporated a simple additional safety measure by indenting markings on the existing unmarked introducer needle. We further evaluated the marked against unmarked needle during real-time US-guided CVC in a prospective randomized pilot study.


   Materials and Methods Top


The study commenced after approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee. The study was registered in the Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI/2015/04/005728). Written informed consent from first of kin of included patients was taken. Sixty-two critically ill adult patients (aged 18–60 years) of either gender admitted to the Intensive Care Unit were included in the study from among the 125 admitted patients during this period. Patients with age < 18 years, presence of skeletal deformities, features suggestive of raised intracranial tension, refusal of consent, and in whom subclavian catheterization was planned were excluded from the study. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups (marked and unmarked introducer needle) as per the computer-generated random number table.

Real-time ultrasound-guided cannulation

Both groups underwent real-time US-guided CVC. Portable US machine (Sonosite MicroMaxx ® with a 7.5-MHz vascular probe) was used for imaging. A single operator with a minimum of 5 years of experience in CVC and more than 1 year experience in real-time US-guided CVC performed all the cannulations. One observer helped in recording the US data and access time (skin puncture to successful guidewire placement in the vein). All patients were sedated and mechanically ventilated (Servo-I ventilator; Maquet Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, USA). Internal jugular vein (IJV) was chosen as the standard vein for CVC in both groups. The selection of right or left IJV was as per feasibility. After placing the patient in the Trendelenburg position,[6] we aseptically prepared and draped the neck area with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol. The target area was anesthetized with 1% lidocaine solution via a 22-gauge needle. Triple lumen central venous cannula set (Certofix Trio; B Braun, Germany) was used in both groups. Aseptically, the unmarked 18-gauge introducer needle from the same set was indented with markings spaced 0.5 cm (single marking) and every 1 cm (double marking) with the help of a sterile blade (available in the CVC set) and scale (predipped in cide × 15 min before the procedure) [Figure 1]. Henceforth, this needle was used as the marked introducer needle. The entire US vascular probe was cleaned with the help of sterile gauze soaked in 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol after which footprint of the probe was covered with sterile Tegaderm (10 cm × 12 cm). The sterilizing solution was used as US gel for viewing. The operator held the probe in a transverse (short-axis) plane to the IJV to be cannulated in the diversion of sternocleidomastoid muscle at the level of the cricoid cartilage. Approximate depths of the anterior and posterior wall of the IJV, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura (where possible) were appreciated from the midpoint of the probe in this short-axis view [Figure 2]. Then, under real-time US guidance, the operator inserted the introducer needle directing it straight toward the vein. After skin penetration, long-axis was used to see the path of the needle. In unmarked group, the strict vigilance of the needle path in US was done. While in marked group, the strict vigilance of the needle path in US along with its markings over needle outside skin was ensured. The needle was thus forwarded toward vein. The venous puncture was confirmed by aspiration of the free flow of venous blood. Then, guide wire was placed from the side port of introducer needle. The time required from skin puncture to successful guidewire placement (access time) using a stopwatch was recorded. After placement of guidewire, US long-axis view of the vein with the movement of the guidewire within the vein was checked to confirm placement. Rest of the procedure of CVC was performed as per Se ldinger technique. Carotid artery puncture was noted by the forceful pulsatile expulsion of bright red blood from the needle. In patients where the first attempt of introducer needle placement or guidewire placement failed, the same operator performed the second attempt in the same vein. In case if the vein was not punctured at the same depth as estimated previously by US, the operator reverified the depth by repeat US. However, any such reconfirmation was also counted as a second attempt. The access time of the repeat attempt was then noted. A check US was done to review hematoma and pneumothorax after all the procedures.
Figure 1: Ghatak-Singh-Baronia's marked introducer needle. Single marking in every 0.5 cm and double marking in every 1 cm length

Click here to view
Figure 2: Distance from the midpoint (M-needle entry point) to the anterior wall of internal jugular vein (A), posterior wall of internal jugular vein (B), anterior wall internal carotid artery (C), and lung pleura (D)

Click here to view


Data collection

Demography (Age, gender, illness [sepsis as defined by SCCM 1992 definition],[7] severity scores [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)], coagulation [platelet count and International Normalized Ratio (INR)], US variables [distances (centimeters) from the midpoint of the probe to the anterior and posterior wall of IJV, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura] and procedural variables [access time (seconds), number of attempts, and complications (arterial puncture, hematoma, and pneumothorax)]) of both groups were recorded.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data expressed as mean (± standard deviation) and proportion (%) as appropriate. Independent sample t-test and Chi-square test were used for comparison of continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A two-tailed value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


There were 31 patients in the marked and unmarked needle groups. Demographic variables (age, gender, and illness) and prognostication (APACHE II and SOFA) scores and coagulation variables (platelet counts and INR) were comparable between the two groups [Table 1].
Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the study population

Click here to view


US variables of approximate depths from the midpoint of the probe to the anterior/posterior wall of IJV, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura were comparable in either group. Access time (skin puncture to successful guide wire placement), though slightly higher in marked group (177.97 ± 54.10 vs. 168.77 ± 64.73; P = 0.55), was not found to be significant [Table 1].

The average number of attempts for CVC was higher in unmarked group compared to marked group (1.26 ± 0.51 vs. 1.03 ± 0.18). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.03) [Table 2].
Table 2: Outcome measures in the marked group versus the unmarked group

Click here to view


Complications such as hematoma were significantly lower (3.2% vs. 22.5%; P = 0.02) with the marked introducer needle group. There was a single arterial puncture (3.2%) in unmarked group while none in marked group. Pneumothorax was not reported in any of the groups [Table 2].


   Discussion Top


Our study shows that provision of a simple safety measure like marked introducer needle significantly reduces the number of attempts and mechanical complications such as hematoma during real-time US-guided CVC.

In real-time US, the operator sees the reflected view of the slender US beam (0.2–1.2 mm).[8] In this view, the operator actually visualizes the area near the needle tip rather than the actual needle tip. In short-axis view, the cross-sectional area near the needle tip can cause needle tip effect. The long-axis view cannot resolve this problem, and the needle tip may pierce the sidewall of the vein.[9] To address this issue, an echogenic vascular cannula (VascularSono, Pajunk, GmbH, Medizintechnologie, Geisingen, Germany), with “Cornerstone” reflectors near the tip, was evolved.[10] However, the use of this costly echogenic vascular cannula has not reduced the incidence of mechanical complications.[10] Moreover, for beginners, the real needle tip and echogenic reflectors in the shaft can be confusing.[10]

Our present study was in continuation to a published case of successful CVC using marked introducer needle in an obese hepatic encephalopathy patient.[11] In our study, we performed a static short-axis US view to measure the approximate depth of target IJV, carotid artery, and pleura (where ever possible) before the use of marked needle. The long-axis view for US-guided CVC was used since it provides a better imaging of the needle path, vein, and guidewire placement than the short-axis view.[9]

Access time in our study is the time between skin puncture and guidewire placement as against other studies (study with echogenic needle versus nonechogenic needle) where it is between skin to vein puncture.[11] Higher access time in our study in marked needle group may also be due to overcautious vigilance toward markings on the needle. The lesser number of attempts for CVC in marked introducer needle group may be due to similar cause. As the distance from needle entry point to the anterior and posterior wall of the vein is known, one should be overcautious in putting the needle beyond the expected distance.

We found a less number of hematoma formation during the procedure in marked needle group (3.2% vs. 22.5%; P = 0.02). The study using echogenic cannula reported similar results (0% vs. 10%). The cause of a more number of hematoma in unmarked group is due to posterior and lateral walls of the vein and arterial puncture by the blind tip.

Limitations and future plans

Our sample size is small. A sample size of 60 patients per group would be required to detect an intergroup difference of at least 20% (α = 0.01, two-sided, power = 90%). The power of our study with the existing sample size is around 60%. Blinding, though desirable was not possible, as a readymade marked introducer needle is not available anywhere. Correlation between US depth and actual depth will be attempted on a larger sample in future.


   Conclusion Top


Our study supports the idea that a small modification of existing introducer needle, i.e., marking the introducer needle can reduce the number of attempts and the iatrogenic mechanical complications associated with CVC. A simple modification of the existing introducer needle along with a prior assessment of depth of the vein, artery, and pleura can be another step toward zero CVC complications.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Fragou M, Gravvanis A, Dimitriou V, Papalois A, Kouraklis G, Karabinis A, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: A prospective randomized study. Crit Care Med 2011;39:1607-12.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, et al. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: Meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327:361.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Leung J, Duffy M, Finckh A. Real-time ultrasonographically-guided internal jugular vein catheterization in the emergency department increases success rates and reduces complications: A randomized, prospective study. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:540-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Wilson TJ, Stetler WR Jr., Fletcher JJ. Comparison of catheter-related large vein thrombosis in centrally inserted versus peripherally inserted central venous lines in the neurological intensive care unit. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:879-82.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Blaivas M, Adhikari S. An unseen danger: Frequency of posterior vessel wall penetration by needles during attempts to place internal jugular vein central catheters using ultrasound guidance. Crit Care Med 2009;37:2345-49.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, Patrianakos AP, Kouraklis G, Poularas J, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: A prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006;10:R162.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Members of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med 1992;20:864-74.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Levitov AB, Aziz S, Slonim AD. Before we go too far: Ultrasound-guided central catheter placement. Crit Care Med 2009;37:2473-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Tokumine J, Lefor AT, Yonei A, Kagaya A, Iwasaki K, Fukuda Y. Three-step method for ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization. Br J Anaesth 2013;110:368-73.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Stefanidis K, Fragou M, Pentilas N, Kouraklis G, Nanas S, Savel RH, et al. Optimization of cannula visibility during ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization, via a longitudinal approach, by implementing echogenic technology. Crit Care Res Pract 2012;2012:617149.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Ghatak T, Singh RK, Baronia AK. Use of optimized ultrasound axis along with marked introducer needle to prevent mechanical complications of internal jugular vein catheterization. Ann Card Anaesth 2013;16:296-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Tanmoy Ghatak
Rammohan Pally, Arambagh, Hooghly - 712 601, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.191563

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top