Ultrasound-Guided Subclavian Vein Catheterization: Contrasting Supraclavicular and Infraclavicular Approaches for...

Background Ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization is crucial for central venous access, but the choice between the supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches lacks comprehensive comparison. This study addresses this gap by conducting a prospective observational analysis of both techniques. The supraclavicular method accesses the vein from above the clavicle while the infraclavicular targets it below. Our model-driven approach aims to elucidate the procedural nuances, success rates, and complications associated with each method. The findings intend to equip clinicians with evidence-based insights, facilitating informed decision-making for improved procedural outcomes in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization. Aim and objective This study aims to comprehensively compare the supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization, evaluating the procedural minutiae, potential advantages, and challenges associated with each technique. Employing a prospective observational methodology, our objective is to provide evidence-based insights for approaches in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization, evaluating procedural nuances, success rates, and complications during the procedure. Methods In this prospective investigation, 276 patients aged between 20 and 55 years were randomly assigned to two groups: 143 patients in the supraclavicular group and 133 patients in the infraclavicular group. Specifically, patients admitted for elective surgery necessitating postoperative ICU care were considered. The study assessed various variables, including success rate, time required for venous visualization, venous puncture, catheterization, total procedure duration, and incidence of mechanical complications, to facilitate group comparisons. Results The mean procedural time was shorter in the supraclavicular group compared to the infraclavicular group, with durations of 2 minutes and 2 seconds versus 3 minutes and 40 seconds, respectively (95% CI). This difference was statistically significant. Similarly, the mean durations for venous visualization, venous puncture, and venous catheterization were also shorter in the supraclavicular group, and these differences were statistically significant. Both groups achieved a 100% success rate, with the first attempt success rate being higher in the supraclavicular subclavian vein group. Conclusion The findings of this study demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in favor of the supraclavicular approach for ultrasound-guided subclavian vein catheterization. The shorter mean procedural time, as well as durations for venous visualization, puncture, and catheterization, emphasize the efficiency of the supraclavicular technique. The consistently achieved 100% success rate, coupled with a higher first-attempt success rate, further underscores the proficiency of the supraclavicular subclavian vein group. These results collectively suggest that the supraclavicular approach is not only time-efficient but also superior in terms of successful central line placement, making it a promising choice for both emergency and critical care settings.