↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 6,588)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
294 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
672 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ultrasound-guided central venous catheter placement: a structured review and recommendations for clinical practice
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1814-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Saugel, Thomas W. L. Scheeren, Jean-Louis Teboul

Abstract

The use of ultrasound (US) has been proposed to reduce the number of complications and to increase the safety and quality of central venous catheter (CVC) placement. In this review, we describe the rationale for the use of US during CVC placement, the basic principles of this technique, and the current evidence and existing guidelines for its use. In addition, we recommend a structured approach for US-guided central venous access for clinical practice. Static and real-time US can be used to visualize the anatomy and patency of the target vein in a short-axis and a long-axis view. US-guided needle advancement can be performed in an "out-of-plane" and an "in-plane" technique. There is clear evidence that US offers gains in safety and quality during CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. For the subclavian and femoral veins, US offers small gains in safety and quality. Based on the available evidence from clinical studies, several guidelines from medical societies strongly recommend the use of US for CVC placement in the internal jugular vein. Data from survey studies show that there is still a gap between the existing evidence and guidelines and the use of US in clinical practice. For clinical practice, we recommend a six-step systematic approach for US-guided central venous access that includes assessing the target vein (anatomy and vessel localization, vessel patency), using real-time US guidance for puncture of the vein, and confirming the correct needle, wire, and catheter position in the vein. To achieve the best skill level for CVC placement the knowledge from anatomic landmark techniques and the knowledge from US-guided CVC placement need to be combined and integrated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 496 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 672 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 672 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 105 16%
Student > Postgraduate 66 10%
Researcher 58 9%
Student > Master 58 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 6%
Other 158 24%
Unknown 184 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 378 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 3%
Engineering 12 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 <1%
Other 40 6%
Unknown 206 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 346. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2024.
All research outputs
#95,256
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#33
of 6,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,143
of 324,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,588 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,692 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.