Cardiothoracic & vascular anesthesia
Biplanar versus conventional two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterisation
Main finding · First-pass success without needle redirectionsResult — go to the resultDifference 1.6% 95% CI −14.0%-17.1%Authors' conclusion
Biplanar ultrasound guidance did not improve success rates nor other performance measures of radial artery catheterisation.
Study context
- Population
- Adults requiring radial artery catheterisation for elective cardiothoracic surgery; anaesthesiologists experienced in 2D and biplanar ultrasound-guided vascular accessall analysed
- Participants
- 158 adults
- Comparison
- Biplanar vs 2D
- Biplanarn = 83
- 2Dn = 75reference
- Outcome
- Successful catheterisation in one skin break without withdrawals
Methodological detailsNovember 2021 to April 2022
- November 2021 to April 2022
Main finding
First-pass success without needle redirections
Difference
1.6%
95% CI −14.0%-17.1%
P = 0.84
By group
Biplanar vs 2D
difference 1.6% (95% CI −14.0%-17.1%); P = 0.84
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
First-pass success within one skin break
difference 4.6% (8.1%–17.3%) · P = 0.473
Punctures, withdrawals, scanning and procedure times, needle visibility, operator mental effort, posterior wall puncture or other mechanical complications
- None of the secondary endpoints differed significantly
Original publication
Biplanar versus conventional two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterisation. BJA Open. Published 24 January 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →