Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial

Truman J. Milling, John S Rose, William M. Briggs, Robert Birkhahn, Theodore J. Gaeta, Joseph J. Bove, Lawrence A. Melniker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

221 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: A 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report on patient safety addressed point-of-care limited ultrasonography guidance for central venous cannulation and strongly recommended real-time, dynamic guidance for all central cannulas. However, on the basis of one limited study, the report dismissed static assistance, a "quick look" with ultrasound to confirm vein location before preparing the sterile field, as unhelpful. Objective: The objective of this trial was to compare the overall success rate of central cannula placement with use of dynamic ultrasound (D), static ultrasound (S), and anatomical landmarks (LM). Design and Setting: A concealed, randomized, controlled, clinical trial conducted from September 2003 to February 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Patients: Two-hundred one patients undergoing internal jugular vein central venous cannulation. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 60 to D, 72 to S, and 69 to LM. An iLook25 SonoSite was used for all imaging. Measurements and Main Results: Cannulation success, first-attempt success, and number of attempts were noted. Other measures were vein size and clarity of LM. Results, controlled for pretest difficulty assessment, are stated as odds improvement (95% confidence interval) over LM for D and S. D had an odds 53.5 (6.6-440) times higher for success than LM. S had an odds 3 (1.3-7) times higher for success than LM. The unadjusted success rates were 98%, 82%, and 64% for D, S, and LM. For first-attempt success, D had an odds 5.8 (2.7-13) times higher for first success than LM, and S had an odds 3.4 (1.6-7.2) times higher for first success than LM. The unadjusted first-attempt success rates were 62%, 50%, and 23% for D, S, and LM. Conclusions: Ultrasound assistance was superior to LM techniques. D outperformed S but may require more training and personnel. All central cannula placement should be conducted with ultrasound assistance. The 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report dismissing static assistance was incorrect.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1764-1769
Number of pages6
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume33
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2005

Fingerprint

Point-of-Care Systems
Catheterization
Ultrasonography
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Health Services Research
Veins
Urban Hospitals
Jugular Veins
Patient Safety
Teaching Hospitals
Confidence Intervals
Cannula

Keywords

  • Central venous cannulation
  • Outcomes assessment
  • Ultrasonography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation : The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial. / Milling, Truman J.; Rose, John S; Briggs, William M.; Birkhahn, Robert; Gaeta, Theodore J.; Bove, Joseph J.; Melniker, Lawrence A.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 33, No. 8, 08.2005, p. 1764-1769.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Milling, Truman J. ; Rose, John S ; Briggs, William M. ; Birkhahn, Robert ; Gaeta, Theodore J. ; Bove, Joseph J. ; Melniker, Lawrence A. / Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation : The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2005 ; Vol. 33, No. 8. pp. 1764-1769.
@article{0af5cb1059434df3bfd2d0e8aea340ae,
title = "Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial",
abstract = "Context: A 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report on patient safety addressed point-of-care limited ultrasonography guidance for central venous cannulation and strongly recommended real-time, dynamic guidance for all central cannulas. However, on the basis of one limited study, the report dismissed static assistance, a {"}quick look{"} with ultrasound to confirm vein location before preparing the sterile field, as unhelpful. Objective: The objective of this trial was to compare the overall success rate of central cannula placement with use of dynamic ultrasound (D), static ultrasound (S), and anatomical landmarks (LM). Design and Setting: A concealed, randomized, controlled, clinical trial conducted from September 2003 to February 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Patients: Two-hundred one patients undergoing internal jugular vein central venous cannulation. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 60 to D, 72 to S, and 69 to LM. An iLook25 SonoSite was used for all imaging. Measurements and Main Results: Cannulation success, first-attempt success, and number of attempts were noted. Other measures were vein size and clarity of LM. Results, controlled for pretest difficulty assessment, are stated as odds improvement (95{\%} confidence interval) over LM for D and S. D had an odds 53.5 (6.6-440) times higher for success than LM. S had an odds 3 (1.3-7) times higher for success than LM. The unadjusted success rates were 98{\%}, 82{\%}, and 64{\%} for D, S, and LM. For first-attempt success, D had an odds 5.8 (2.7-13) times higher for first success than LM, and S had an odds 3.4 (1.6-7.2) times higher for first success than LM. The unadjusted first-attempt success rates were 62{\%}, 50{\%}, and 23{\%} for D, S, and LM. Conclusions: Ultrasound assistance was superior to LM techniques. D outperformed S but may require more training and personnel. All central cannula placement should be conducted with ultrasound assistance. The 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report dismissing static assistance was incorrect.",
keywords = "Central venous cannulation, Outcomes assessment, Ultrasonography",
author = "Milling, {Truman J.} and Rose, {John S} and Briggs, {William M.} and Robert Birkhahn and Gaeta, {Theodore J.} and Bove, {Joseph J.} and Melniker, {Lawrence A.}",
year = "2005",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1097/01.CCM.0000171533.92856.E5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "1764--1769",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation

T2 - The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial

AU - Milling, Truman J.

AU - Rose, John S

AU - Briggs, William M.

AU - Birkhahn, Robert

AU - Gaeta, Theodore J.

AU - Bove, Joseph J.

AU - Melniker, Lawrence A.

PY - 2005/8

Y1 - 2005/8

N2 - Context: A 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report on patient safety addressed point-of-care limited ultrasonography guidance for central venous cannulation and strongly recommended real-time, dynamic guidance for all central cannulas. However, on the basis of one limited study, the report dismissed static assistance, a "quick look" with ultrasound to confirm vein location before preparing the sterile field, as unhelpful. Objective: The objective of this trial was to compare the overall success rate of central cannula placement with use of dynamic ultrasound (D), static ultrasound (S), and anatomical landmarks (LM). Design and Setting: A concealed, randomized, controlled, clinical trial conducted from September 2003 to February 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Patients: Two-hundred one patients undergoing internal jugular vein central venous cannulation. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 60 to D, 72 to S, and 69 to LM. An iLook25 SonoSite was used for all imaging. Measurements and Main Results: Cannulation success, first-attempt success, and number of attempts were noted. Other measures were vein size and clarity of LM. Results, controlled for pretest difficulty assessment, are stated as odds improvement (95% confidence interval) over LM for D and S. D had an odds 53.5 (6.6-440) times higher for success than LM. S had an odds 3 (1.3-7) times higher for success than LM. The unadjusted success rates were 98%, 82%, and 64% for D, S, and LM. For first-attempt success, D had an odds 5.8 (2.7-13) times higher for first success than LM, and S had an odds 3.4 (1.6-7.2) times higher for first success than LM. The unadjusted first-attempt success rates were 62%, 50%, and 23% for D, S, and LM. Conclusions: Ultrasound assistance was superior to LM techniques. D outperformed S but may require more training and personnel. All central cannula placement should be conducted with ultrasound assistance. The 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report dismissing static assistance was incorrect.

AB - Context: A 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report on patient safety addressed point-of-care limited ultrasonography guidance for central venous cannulation and strongly recommended real-time, dynamic guidance for all central cannulas. However, on the basis of one limited study, the report dismissed static assistance, a "quick look" with ultrasound to confirm vein location before preparing the sterile field, as unhelpful. Objective: The objective of this trial was to compare the overall success rate of central cannula placement with use of dynamic ultrasound (D), static ultrasound (S), and anatomical landmarks (LM). Design and Setting: A concealed, randomized, controlled, clinical trial conducted from September 2003 to February 2004 in a U.S. urban teaching hospital. Patients: Two-hundred one patients undergoing internal jugular vein central venous cannulation. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 60 to D, 72 to S, and 69 to LM. An iLook25 SonoSite was used for all imaging. Measurements and Main Results: Cannulation success, first-attempt success, and number of attempts were noted. Other measures were vein size and clarity of LM. Results, controlled for pretest difficulty assessment, are stated as odds improvement (95% confidence interval) over LM for D and S. D had an odds 53.5 (6.6-440) times higher for success than LM. S had an odds 3 (1.3-7) times higher for success than LM. The unadjusted success rates were 98%, 82%, and 64% for D, S, and LM. For first-attempt success, D had an odds 5.8 (2.7-13) times higher for first success than LM, and S had an odds 3.4 (1.6-7.2) times higher for first success than LM. The unadjusted first-attempt success rates were 62%, 50%, and 23% for D, S, and LM. Conclusions: Ultrasound assistance was superior to LM techniques. D outperformed S but may require more training and personnel. All central cannula placement should be conducted with ultrasound assistance. The 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence Report dismissing static assistance was incorrect.

KW - Central venous cannulation

KW - Outcomes assessment

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23844513438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23844513438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.CCM.0000171533.92856.E5

DO - 10.1097/01.CCM.0000171533.92856.E5

M3 - Article

C2 - 16096454

AN - SCOPUS:23844513438

VL - 33

SP - 1764

EP - 1769

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 8

ER -