Volume 11, Issue 1 (2022)                   J Police Med 2022, 11(1) | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.sums.med.rec.1398.255

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Saeed A, Panah A, Mohammadi H, Ardakani A. Evaluation of Complications of Central Venous Catheterization into Subclavian Vein with Supraclavicular Approach in Critically Children Admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in A Referral Center in the South of Iran. J Police Med 2022; 11 (1) : e24
URL: http://jpmed.ir/article-1-1084-en.html
1- Department of Pediatrics, Namazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, Namazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Department of Pediatrics, Namazi Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , mohammadi219@gmail.com
4- Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
English Extended Abstract:   (1215 Views)
Central venous catheter can be performed through various sites such as a femoral vein, internal jugular vein, and subclavian vein, but it seems choosing the best route depends on skill, clinical situation, and physician judgment. [1]. Subclavian vein catheterization is mostly used with infraclavicular approach. However, this approach is associated with complications such as perforation of the subclavian artery, pneumothorax, and Hemothorax [2, 3]. ... [4]. Because of the potentially life-threatening complications, physicians, especially anesthesiologists, had no interest in performing subclavian vein catheterization [5]. If we compare the supraclavicular approach with the infraclavicular approach, the presence of a specific location (landmark) and fully defined (clavisternomastoid angle), shorter skin-to-vein distance; A larger target area, a more direct path to the subclavian vein, less proximity of this method to the lung, and fewer complications of pleural or artery rupture are some of the advantages of the supraclavicular approach; in addition, there is less need to stopping resuscitation performing this method during cardiopulmonary resuscitation [6, 7]. Because of the small spots to place the probe (especially in children) during needle insertion, supraclavicular approach in children in ultrasound-guided subclavian vein placement is technically difficult; however, in recent years, many advantages of this method have been shown [8-10]. Although data from studies on adults suggest a lower risk and fewer complications from the subclavian region, there is less information about children [3]. Also, there are not many studies on the complications of the supraclavicular approach in intubated patients treated with positive pressure ventilation, especially in children [11, 12].
Although ultrasound is a great advance in the placement of central catheters, and with ultrasound guidance, in the supraclavicular method, the rate of catheter failure and its complications are reduced, ultrasound is not always available in all ICUs or is not easily used in children. Therefore, the catheterization method based on landmarks can be used as a safe method by physicians even among children. Since we use this method at Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran without the help of ultrasonography; we conducted this study to investigate the complications and success rate of this method, especially in intubated patients, and compare our results with other studies.
This is a retrospective observational study.
This study was conducted from January 2019 to August 2020 in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in Namazi Hospital, Shiraz, Iran, and patients less than 18 years old for whom central venous catheterization in the subclavian vein was performed with a supraclavicular approach because of various reasons (lack of suitable peripheral vessels, need for inotrope, etc.), were included in the study.
In this study, patients who were extubated were given appropriate anesthesia and the skin was anesthetized with lidocaine, but patients who were intubated under mechanical ventilation, received sedation and painkillers, and lidocaine was used according to the level of consciousness and sensation. All procedures were performed in aseptic conditions with continuous cardiac monitoring and oxygen saturation. The size of the catheters was chosen according to the weight and size of the patients and the reason for their placement (hemodialysis or plasmapheresis). Catheters were operated through the skin using the Seldinger technique, after catheter placement, to confirm its position and detect its primary complications (hemothorax, pneumothorax); a chest radiograph was taken (Figure 1). During and after the procedure, the injection site and the patient's condition were closely monitored for possible immediate complications (such as bleeding, and pneumothorax), and patients were also monitored daily for other late complications such as thrombosis, dysfunction, and infection. All of them were examined by a doctor and the ICU nurses recorded the complications in the symptom registration form in the patient's medical records. Insertion of central venous catheters was performed by a cardiac anesthesiologist (first author), and another colleague collected data by reviewing medical records and checklists filled by ICU physician and nurses regarding the complications of central venous catheter insertion.
This study was approved by the ethics committee of the university and registered with the approval ID IR.sums.med.rec.1398.255.
During the 20 months of conducting this study, 282 patients were included in the study 153 of whom (54.3%) were girls and 129 patients (45.7%) were boys. The average age of the patients in this study was five years and one month with a standard deviation of 5.4 years (Chart 1), the youngest of whom was one month old and the oldest was 18 years old. The minimum weight of the studied samples was 2400 grams and their maximum weight was 124 kg. Out of the total number of patients, 14 people were extubated and 268 (95%) were intubated under mechanical ventilation. In 275 patients (97%), the lumen was placed on the right side (versus 7 patients). In 7 cases (2.48%), a size 12 lumen was placed for hemodialysis or plasmapheresis. Catheterization failed in 2 patients (0.7%) and the success rate of this method in our study was 99.3%. The two cases, in which central venous catheter placement was unsuccessful, included a 57-day-old boy with a large ventricular septal defect (VSD) with heart failure and pleural effusion, and an 18-month-old girl with septic shock and low blood pressure. Among 282 patients, pneumothorax was diagnosed in two patients (0.7%) after catheter placement (a three-month-old and an 11-month-old), and both of them were intubated and under mechanical ventilation, so a chest tube was implanted for them. In our study, hemothorax and arterial perforation were not observed (Table 1). In our study, no patient died intraoperatively due to complications from catheter placement (Table 1).
The success rate of catheter placement in our study was 99.3%. In other studies, success rates for jugular vein catheterization have been reported as up to 90% [13, 14] and for subclavian vein, catheterization varied from 71 to 100% in the infraclavicular approach [15-17]. In a study that Finck C et al. performed without using ultrasound, the success rate in the age group below 6 months was 78% and in the age group above 6 months was reported at 96% [15]. Lu WH and colleagues in another study done without using ultrasound; have reported a success rate of about 96% [18]. In another study conducted by Byon et al. on 98 children less than 3 years old to compare two supraclavicular and infraclavicular methods for subclavian vein catheterization, ultrasound was used in all patients that were in general anesthesia for congenital heart surgery or neurosurgery and required central venous catheter placement; they performed subclavian cannulation in all patients with 100% success and without complications, but the supraclavicular method was faster and associated with fewer attempts to perform [17]. In another study by Nardi N et al. performed on 615 patients with the supraclavicular method with the help of ultrasound, the success rate was 98% [19]. It seems that in the two cases in which central vein catheterization was unsuccessful in our study, besides the small size and low weight of the patients, severe pleural effusion in one patient, which disturbed the anatomy of that area, and severe hypotension in another patient, were possible causes of failure. The complication rate of subclavian vein catheterization in our study was 0.7% (Table 1). In other studies, the complication rate of central venous catheter operation in the jugular vein has been reported up to 9% [13, 14] and in the subclavian vein up to 58% [6]. In our study, the rate of complications, especially pneumothorax, was observed in two patients, both of whom were intubated (0.7%). Other studies have reported the incidence of complications between 0 and 3 percent [4, 16]. In the present study, we did not have any arterial perforation following catheterization, but the rate of arterial perforation during catheterization has been reported in other studies between 1.9-12.8% [18-23]. In our study, no local infection or systemic infection was detected. Czarnik et al published a study on 370 adult patients in which 78.4% of their patients were intubated on a mechanical ventilator with a subclavian success rate of 92% during the procedure, and the overall complication rate was 1.7%, including three subclavian artery perforations and three subclavian vein catheterizations in the opposite vein [12]. Pneumothorax is one of the complications of central vein catheterization (internal jugular and subclavian), and this complication can even cause the death of the patient if diagnosed late. The incidence of this complication has been reported between 0.2% and 2.4% in various studies [15, 22]. In our study, this rate was 0.7%, which was comparable to other studies. Among the things that are effective in the occurrence of pneumothorax, we can mention the existence of sufficient experience and the use of sedatives in central vein cannulation [3], but in another study conducted on 1257 children, there was no relation between the level of experience of people and the incidence of pneumothorax, but 99% of the patients in this study had received appropriate sedation and anesthesia [16]. In our study, this work was done by an experienced person, but none of the patients were under deep anesthesia, especially in the patients who were not intubated, only local anesthesia and a low dose of sedation were used, and the two cases that suffered from this complication; both were intubated and less than one year old and had received anesthesia, but due to severe pneumonia and lung involvement, the ventilator positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was more than 10.
The main limitation in conducting our study was the impossibility of performing a comparison of this method in another group using ultrasound, and the reason for that was the lack of a suitable ultrasound probe for small-sized children in the studied hospital.
It is suggested that in the next research, the results of patients in whom catheterization was performed using ultrasound be compared with the results of this study.
Based on the results of this study, considering the low rate of complications and high success rate, compared to the more common methods of central vein cannulation in children, the supraclavicular approach for subclavian vein cannulation can be considered as a safe and fast method for central vein catheterization among children.
The catheterization method based on landmarks can be used as a fast and safe method for the treatment staff of military and police headquarter who cannot use ultrasound devices in places close to conflict or remote areas.
The authors of this article are grateful for the efforts of the pediatric ICU nurses of Shiraz Namazi Hospital.
The authors of the article state that there is no conflict of interest in the present study.
The authors of this article did not receive financial support.

Chart 1)
Age distribution of patients (month)

Table 1) frequency of complications caused by catheterization
Number Gender Catheter failure Pneumothorax Artery perforation Thrombosis Catheter-induced blood infection
Boy (54.3)153 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 0 0 0
Girl (45.7)129 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 0 0 0
Total 282 (0.7) 2 (0.7) 2 0 0 0
* Catheter-related bloodstream infections

Figure 1)
Chest photo after catheterization
Article number: e24
Full-Text [PDF 602 kb]   (1155 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Crisis Medicine
Received: 2022/03/11 | Accepted: 2022/06/1 | Published: 2022/07/29

1. Turcotte S, Dube S, Beauchamp G. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are not superior to central venous catheters in the acute care of surgical patients on the ward. World J Surg. 2006;30(8):1605-19. [DOI:10.1007/s00268-005-0174-y] [PMID]
2. Lefrant JY, Muller L, De La Coussaye JE, Prudhomme M, Ripart J et al. Risk factors of failure and immediate complication of subclavian vein catheterization in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1036-41. [DOI:10.1007/s00134-002-1364-9] [PMID]
3. Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(2):259-61. [DOI:10.1001/archinte.146.2.259] [PMID]
4. Yoffa D. Supraclavicular subclavian venepuncture and catheterisation. The Lancet. 1965;2(7413):614-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(65)90519-2 [DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)90519-2]
5. Patrick SP, Tijunelis MA, Johnson S, Herbert ME. Supraclavicular subclavian vein catheterization: the forgotten central line. West J Emerg Med. 2009;10(2):110-4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691520/
6. Brahos GJ. Central venous catheterization via the supraclavicular approach. The Journal of Trauma. 1977 Nov 1;17(11):872-7. [DOI:10.1097/00005373-197711000-00009] [PMID]
7. Brahos GJ, Cohen MJ. Supraclavicular central venous catheterization: Technique and experience in 250 cases. Wis Med J. 1981;80:36-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7233965/
8. Merchaoui Z, Lausten-Thomsen U, Pierre F, Ben Laiba M, Le Saché N, Tissieres P. Supraclavicular approach to ultrasound-guided brachiocephalic vein cannulation in children and neonates. Front Pediatr. 2017;5:211. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffped.2017.00211 [DOI:10.3389/fped.2017.00211] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Ares G, Hunter CJ. Central venous access in children: indications, devices, and risks. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2017;29(3):340-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000485 [DOI:10.1097/mop.0000000000000485] [PMID]
10. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011447 [DOI:10.1002/14651858.cd011447] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Dronen S, Thompson B, Nowak R, Tomlanovich M. Subclavian vein catheterization during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective comparison of the supraclavicular and infraclavicular percutaneous approaches. JAMA. 1982;247(23):3227-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7087062/ [DOI:10.1001/jama.247.23.3227] [PMID]
12. Czarnik T, Gawda R, Perkowski T, Weron R. Supraclavicular approach is an easy and safe method of subclavian vein catheterization even in mechanically ventilated patients: analysis of 370 attempts. Anesthesiology. 2009;111(2):334-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ac461f [DOI:10.1097/aln.0b013e3181ac461f] [PMID]
13. Timsit JF, Farkas JC, Boyer JM, Martin JB, Misset B, Renaud B ey al. Central vein catheter-related thrombosis in intensive care patients: incidence, risks factors, and relationship with catheter-related sepsis. Chest. 1998;114(1):207-13. doi: 10.1378/chest.114.1.207. [DOI:10.1378/chest.114.1.207] [PMID]
14. Tomar GS, Chawla S, Ganguly S, Cherian G, Tiwari A. Supraclavicular approach of central venous catheter insertion in critical patients in emergency settings: Re-visited. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(1):10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.112145 [DOI:10.4103%2F0972-5229.112145] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Finck C, Smith S, Jackson R, Wagner C. Percutaneous subclavian central venous catheterization in children younger than one year of age. Am Surg. 2002;68(4):401-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11952258/
16. Johnson EM, Saltzman DA, Suh G, Dahms RA, Leonard AS. Complications and risks of central venous catheter placement in children. Surgery. 1998;124(5):911-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9823406/ [DOI:10.1016/S0039-6060(98)70016-9]
17. Byon HJ, Lee GW, Lee JH, Park YH, Kim HS, Kim CS et al. Comparison between ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and infraclavicular approaches for subclavian venous catheterization in children-a randomized trial. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(5):788-92. [DOI:10.1093/bja/aet202] [PMID]
18. Lu WH, Yao ML, Hsieh KS, Chiu PC, Chen YY, Lin CC et al. Supraclavicular versus infraclavicular subclavian vein catheterization in infants. J Chin Med Assoc. 2006;69(4):153-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70196-0 [DOI:10.1016/s1726-4901(09)70196-0]
19. Nardi N, Wodey E, Laviolle B, De La Brière F, Delahaye S, Engrand C et al. Effectiveness and complications of ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation in children and neonates. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(3):209-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.accpm.2015.09.007] [PMID]
20. Araujo CC, Lima MC, Falbo GH. Percutaneous subclavian central venous catheterization in children and adolescents: success, complications and related factors. J Pediatr. 2007;83(1):64-70. https://doi.org/10.2223/JPED.1583 [DOI:10.2223/jped.1583] [PMID]
21. Srisan P, Juhong S, Kanjanapatanakul W. Central venous catheterization related complications in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97:S83-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25391177/
22. Çitak A, Karaböcüoglu M, Üçsel R, Uzel N. Central venous catheters in pediatric patients-subclavian venous approach as the first choice. Pediatr Int. 2002;44(1):S83-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-200X.2002.01509.x [DOI:10.1046/j.1442-200x.2002.01509.x] [PMID]
23. Rey C, Álvarez F, De La Rua V, Medina A, Concha A, Díaz JJ et al. Mfechanical complications during central venous cannulations in pediatric patients. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(8):1438-43. [DOI:10.1007/s00134-009-1534-0] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.