Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access

• What other guideline statements are available on this topic?
  • Several major organizations have produced practice guidelines on central venous access 128 – 132 
• Why was this Guideline developed?
  • The ASA has created this new Practice Guideline to provide updated recommendations on some issues
    and new recommendations on issues that have not been previously addressed by other guidelines. This was based on a rigorous evaluation of recent scientific literature as well as findings from surveys of expert consultants and randomly selected ASA members
• How does this statement differ from existing guidelines?
  • The ASA Guidelines differ in areas such as insertion site selection (e.g.  , upper body site) guidance for catheter placement (e.g.  , use of real-time ultrasound) and verification of venous location of the catheter
• Why does this statement differ from existing guidelines?
  • The ASA Guidelines differ from existing guidelines because it addresses the use of bundled techniques, use of an assistant during catheter placement, and management of arterial injury

PRACTICE Guidelines  are systematically developed recommendations that assist the practitioner and patient in making decisions about health care. These recommendations may be adopted, modified, or rejected according to clinical needs and constraints, and are not intended to replace local institutional policies. In addition, Practice Guidelines developed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) are not intended as standards or absolute requirements, and their use cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Practice Guidelines are subject to revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. They provide basic recommendations that are supported by a synthesis and analysis of the current literature, expert and practitioner opinion, open forum commentary, and clinical feasibility data.

Methodology

A. Definition of Central Venous Access

For these Guidelines, central venous access is defined as placement of a catheter such that the catheter is inserted into a venous great vessel. The venous great vessels include the superior vena cava, inferior vena cava, brachiocephalic veins, internal jugular veins, subclavian veins, iliac veins, and common femoral veins.1Excluded are catheters that terminate in a systemic artery.

B. Purposes of the Guidelines

The purposes of these Guidelines are to (1) provide guidance regarding placement and management of central venous catheters, (2) reduce infectious, mechanical, thrombotic, and other adverse outcomes associated with central venous catheterization, and (3) improve management of arterial trauma or injury arising from central venous catheterization.

C. Focus

These Guidelines apply to patients undergoing elective central venous access procedures performed by anesthesiologists or health care professionals under the direction/supervision of anesthesiologists. The Guidelines do not address (1) clinical indications for placement of central venous catheters, (2) emergency placement of central venous catheters, (3) patients with peripherally inserted central catheters, (4) placement and residence of a pulmonary artery catheter, (5) insertion of tunneled central lines (e.g.  , permacaths, portacaths, Hickman®, Quinton®, (6) methods of detection or treatment of infectious complications associated with central venous catheterization, or (7) diagnosis and management of central venous catheter-associated trauma or injury (e.g.  , pneumothorax or air embolism), with the exception of carotid arterial injury.

D. Application

These Guidelines are intended for use by anesthesiologists and individuals who are under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. They also may serve as a resource for other physicians (e.g.  , surgeons, radiologists), nurses, or health care providers who manage patients with central venous catheters.

E. Task Force Members and Consultants

The ASA appointed a Task Force of 12 members, including anesthesiologists in both private and academic practice from various geographic areas of the United States and two consulting methodologists from the ASA Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters.

The Task Force developed the Guidelines by means of a seven-step process. First, they reached consensus on the criteria for evidence. Second, original published research studies from peer-reviewed journals relevant to central venous access were reviewed and evaluated. Third, expert consultants were asked to (1) participate in opinion surveys on the effectiveness of various central venous access recommendations and (2) review and comment on a draft of the Guidelines. Fourth, opinions about the Guideline recommendations were solicited from a sample of active members of the ASA. Opinions on selected topics related to pediatric patients were solicited from a sample of active members of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia (SPA). Fifth, the Task Force held open forums at three major national meetings2to solicit input on its draft recommendations. Sixth, the consultants were surveyed to assess their opinions on the feasibility of implementing the Guidelines. Seventh, all available information was used to build consensus within the Task Force to finalize the Guidelines. A summary of recommendations may be found in appendix 1.

F. Availability and Strength of Evidence

Preparation of these Guidelines followed a rigorous methodologic process. Evidence was obtained from two principal sources: scientific evidence and opinion-based evidence.

Scientific Evidence

Study findings from published scientific literature were aggregated and are reported in summary form by evidence category, as described in the following paragraphs. All literature (e.g.  , randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case reports) relevant to each topic was considered when evaluating the findings. However, for reporting purposes in this document, only the highest level of evidence (i.e.  , level 1, 2, or 3 within category A, B, or C, as identified in the following paragraphs) is included in the summary.

Category A: Supportive Literature

Randomized controlled trials report statistically significant (P  < 0.01) differences between clinical interventions for a specified clinical outcome.

• Level 1: The literature contains multiple randomized controlled trials, and aggregated findings are supported by meta-analysis.3
• Level 2: The literature contains multiple randomized controlled trials, but the number of studies is insufficient to conduct a viable meta-analysis for the purpose of these Guidelines.
• Level 3: The literature contains a single randomized controlled trial.

Category B: Suggestive Literature

Information from observational studies permits inference of beneficial or harmful relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes.

• Level 1: The literature contains observational comparisons (e.g.  , cohort, case-control research designs) of clinical interventions or conditions and indicates statistically significant differences between clinical interventions for a specified clinical outcome.
• Level 2: The literature contains noncomparative observational studies with associative (e.g.  , relative risk, correlation) or descriptive statistics.
• Level 3: The literature contains case reports.

Category C: Equivocal Literature

The literature cannot determine whether there are beneficial or harmful relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes.

• Level 1: Meta-analysis did not find significant differences (P  > 0.01) among groups or conditions.
• Level 2: The number of studies is insufficient to conduct meta-analysis, and (1) randomized controlled trials have not found significant differences among groups or conditions or (2) randomized controlled trials report inconsistent findings.
• Level 3: Observational studies report inconsistent findings or do not permit inference of beneficial or harmful relationships.

Category D: Insufficient Evidence from Literature

The lack of scientific evidence in the literature is described by the following terms:

• Inadequate: The available literature cannot be used to assess relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes. The literature either does not meet the criteria for content as defined in the “Focus” of the Guidelines or does not permit a clear interpretation of findings due to methodologic concerns (e.g.  , confounding in study design or implementation).
• Silent: No identified studies address the specified relationships among interventions and outcomes.

Opinion-based Evidence

All opinion-based evidence relevant to each topic (e.g.  , survey data, open-forum testimony, Internet-based comments, letters, editorials) is considered in the development of these Guidelines. However, only the findings obtained from formal surveys are reported.

Opinion surveys were developed by the Task Force to address each clinical intervention identified in the document. Identical surveys were distributed to expert consultants and ASA members, and a survey addressing selected pediatric issues was distributed to SPA members.

Category A: Expert Opinion

Survey responses from Task Force-appointed expert consultants are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of consultant survey responses reported in appendix 5.

Category B: Membership Opinion

Survey responses from active ASA and SPA members are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of ASA and SPA member survey responses reported in appendix 5.

Survey responses are recorded using a 5-point scale and summarized based on median values.4

• Strongly Agree. Median score of 5 (at least 50% of the responses are 5).
• Agree. Median score of 4 (at least 50% of the responses are 4 or 4 and 5).
• Equivocal. Median score of 3 (at least 50% of the responses are 3, or no other response category or combination of similar categories contain at least 50% of the responses).
• Disagree. Median score of 2 (at least 50% of responses are 2 or 1 and 2).
• Strongly Disagree. Median score of 1 (at least 50% of responses are 1).

Category C: Informal Opinion

Open-forum testimony, Internet-based comments, letters, and editorials are all informally evaluated and discussed during the development of Guideline recommendations. When warranted, the Task Force may add educational information or cautionary notes based on this information.

Guidelines

I. Resource Preparation

Resource preparation includes (1) assessing the physical environment where central venous catheterization is planned to determine the feasibility of using aseptic techniques, (2) availability of a standardized equipment set, (3) use of an assistant for central venous catheterization, and (4) use of a checklist or protocol for central venous catheter placement and maintenance.

The literature is insufficient to specifically evaluate the effect of the physical environment for aseptic catheter insertion, availability of a standardized equipment set, or the use of an assistant on outcomes associated with central venous catheterization (Category D evidence  ). An observational study reports that the implementation of a trauma intensive care unit multidisciplinary checklist is associated with reduced catheter-related infection rates (Category B2 evidence  ).1 Observational studies report reduced catheter-related bloodstream infection rates when intensive care unit-wide bundled protocols are implemented (Category B2 evidence  ).2 – 7 These studies do not permit the assessment of the effect of any single component of a checklist or bundled protocol on outcome. The Task Force notes that the use of checklists in other specialties or professions has been effective in reducing the error rate for a complex series of activities.8,9 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that central venous catheterization should be performed in a location that permits the use of aseptic techniques. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that a standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access. The consultants and ASA members agree that a trained assistant should be used during the placement of a central venous catheter. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that a checklist or protocol should be used for the placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.

Recommendations for Resource Preparation.

Central venous catheterization should be performed in an environment that permits use of aseptic techniques. A standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access.5A checklist or protocol should be used for placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.6An assistant should be used during placement of a central venous catheter.7

II. Prevention of Infectious Complications

Interventions intended to prevent infectious complications associated with central venous access include, but are not limited to (1) intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis, (2) aseptic techniques (i.e.  , practitioner aseptic preparation and patient skin preparation), (3) selection of coated or impregnated catheters, (4) selection of catheter insertion site, (5) catheter fixation method, (6) insertion site dressings, (7) catheter maintenance procedures, and (8) aseptic techniques using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration.

Intravenous Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

Randomized controlled trials indicate that catheter-related infections and sepsis are reduced when prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are administered to high-risk immunosuppressed cancer patients or neonates (Category A2 evidence  ).10,11 The literature is insufficient to evaluate outcomes associated with the routine use of intravenous antibiotics (Category D evidence  ).

The consultants and ASA members agree that intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis may be administered on a case-by-case basis for immunocompromised patients or high-risk neonates. The consultants and ASA members agree that intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.

Recommendations for Intravenous Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

For immunocompromised patients and high-risk neonates, administer intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.

Aseptic Preparation and Selection of Antiseptic Solution

Aseptic preparation of practitioner, staff, and patients: A randomized controlled trial comparing maximal barrier precautions (i.e.  , mask, cap, gloves, gown, large full-body drape) with a control group (i.e.  , gloves and small drape) reported equivocal findings for reduced colonization (P  = 0.03) and catheter-related septicemia (P  = 0.06) (Category C2 evidence  ).12 The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of specific aseptic activities (e.g.  , hand washing) or barrier precautions (e.g.  , sterile full-body drapes, sterile gown, gloves, mask, cap) (Category D evidence  ). Observational studies report hand washing, sterile full-body drapes, sterile gloves, caps, and masks as elements of care “bundles” that result in reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections (Category B2 evidence  ).2 – 7 However, the degree to which each particular element contributed to improved outcomes could not be determined.

Most consultants and ASA members indicated that the following aseptic techniques should be used in preparation for the placement of central venous catheters: hand washing (100% and 96%); sterile full-body drapes (87.3% and 73.8%); sterile gowns (100% and 87.8%), gloves (100% and 100%), caps (100% and 94.7%), and masks covering both the mouth and nose (100% and 98.1%).

Selection of Antiseptic Solution

Chlorhexidine solutions: A randomized controlled trial comparing chlorhexidine (2% aqueous solution without alcohol) with 10% povidone iodine (without alcohol) for skin preparation reports equivocal findings regarding catheter colonization (P  = 0.013) and catheter-related bacteremia (P  = 0.28) (Category C2 evidence  ).13 The literature is insufficient to evaluate chlorhexidine with alcohol compared with povidone-iodine with alcohol (Category D evidence  ). The literature is insufficient to evaluate the safety of antiseptic solutions containing chlorhexidine in neonates, infants and children (Category D evidence  ).

Solutions containing alcohol: Comparative studies are insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine with alcohol in comparison with chlorhexidine without alcohol for skin preparation during central venous catheterization (Category D evidence  ). A randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine with alcohol indicates that catheter tip colonization is reduced when compared with povidone-iodine alone (Category A3 evidence  ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related infection (P  = 0.04) and clinical signs of infection (P  = 0.09) (Category C2 evidence  ).14 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that chlorhexidine with alcohol should be used for skin preparation. SPA members are equivocal regarding whether chlorhexidine-containing solutions should be used for skin preparation in neonates (younger than 44 gestational weeks); they agree with the use of chlorhexidine in infants (younger than 2 yr) and strongly agree with its use in children (2–16 yr).

Recommendations for Aseptic Preparation and Selection of Antiseptic Solution

In preparation for the placement of central venous catheters, use aseptic techniques (e.g.  , hand washing) and maximal barrier precautions (e.g.  , sterile gowns, sterile gloves, caps, masks covering both mouth and nose, and full-body patient drapes). A chlorhexidine-containing solution should be used for skin preparation in adults, infants, and children; for neonates, the use of a chlorhexidine-containing solution for skin preparation should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol. If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used. Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.

Catheters Containing Antimicrobial Agents.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials15 – 19 comparing antibiotic-coated with uncoated catheters indicates that antibiotic-coated catheters reduce catheter colonization (Category A1 evidence  ). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials20 – 24 comparing silver-impregnated catheters with uncoated catheters report equivocal findings for catheter-related bloodstream infection (Category C1 evidence  ); randomized controlled trials were equivocal regarding catheter colonization (P  = 0.16–0.82) (Category C2 evidence  ).20–22,24 Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials25 – 36 demonstrate that catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine reduce catheter colonization (Category A1 evidence  ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related bloodstream infection (i.e.  , catheter colonization and corresponding positive blood culture) (Category C1 evidence  ).25–27,29–35,37,38 Cases of anaphylactic shock are reported after placement of a catheter coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (Category B3 evidence  ).39 – 41 

Consultants and ASA members agree that catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine may be used in selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use.

Recommendations for Use of Catheters Containing Antimicrobial Agents.

Catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine should be used for selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use. The Task Force notes that catheters containing antimicrobial agents are not a substitute for additional infection precautions.

Selection of Catheter Insertion Site.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the subclavian and femoral insertion sites report higher levels of catheter colonization with the femoral site (Category A3 evidence  ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related sepsis (P  = 0.07) (Category C2 evidence  ).42 A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the femoral site reports no difference in catheter colonization (P  = 0.79) or catheter related bloodstream infections (P  = 0.42) (Category C2 evidence  ).43 Prospective nonrandomized comparative studies are equivocal (i.e.  , inconsistent) regarding catheter-related colonization44 – 46 and catheter related bloodstream infection46 – 48 when the internal jugular site is compared with the subclavian site (Category C3 evidence  ). A nonrandomized comparative study of burn patients reports that catheter colonization and bacteremia occur more frequently the closer the catheter insertion site is to the burn wound (Category B1 evidence  ).49 

Most consultants indicate that the subclavian insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of infection. Most ASA members indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of infection. The consultants and ASA members agree that femoral catheterization should be avoided when possible to minimize the risk of infection. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that an insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated.

Recommendations for Selection of Catheter Insertion Site.

Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need. An insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated (e.g.  , burned or infected skin, inguinal area, adjacent to tracheostomy or open surgical wound). In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of infection.

Catheter Fixation.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether catheter fixation with sutures, staples or tape is associated with a higher risk for catheter-related infections (Category D evidence  ).

Most consultants and ASA members indicate that use of sutures is the preferred catheter fixation technique to minimize catheter-related infection.

Recommendations for Catheter Fixation.

The use of sutures, staples, or tape for catheter fixation should be determined on a local or institutional basis.

Insertion Site Dressings.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of transparent bio-occlusive dressings to reduce the risk of infection (Category D evidence  ). Randomized controlled trials are equivocal (P  = 0.04–0.96) regarding catheter tip colonization50,51 and inconsistent (P  = 0.004–0.96) regarding catheter-related bloodstream infection50,52 when chlorhexidine sponge dressings are compared with standard polyurethane dressings (Category C2 evidence  ). A randomized controlled trial is also equivocal regarding catheter tip colonization for silver-impregnated transparent dressings compared with standard dressings (P  > 0.05) (Category C2 evidence  ).53 A randomized controlled trial reports a greater frequency of severe localized contact dermatitis when neonates receive chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings compared with povidone-iodine impregnated dressings (Category A3 evidence  ).54 

The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection. The consultants and ASA members agree that dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used to reduce the risk of catheter-related infection. SPA members are equivocal regarding whether dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used for skin preparation in neonates (younger than 44 gestational weeks); they agree that the use of dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in infants (younger than 2 yr) and children (2–16 yr).

Recommendations for Insertion Site Dressings.

Transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection. Unless contraindicated, dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in adults, infants, and children. For neonates, the use of transparent or sponge dressings containing chlorhexidine should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.

Catheter Maintenance.

Catheter maintenance consists of (1) determining the optimal duration of catheterization, (2) conducting catheter site inspections, (3) periodically changing catheters, and (4) changing catheters using a guidewire instead of selecting a new insertion site.

Nonrandomized comparative studies indicate that longer catheterizations are associated with higher rates of catheter colonization, infection, and sepsis (Category B2 evidence  ).45,55 The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether specified time intervals between catheter site inspections are associated with a higher risk for catheter-related infection (Category D evidence  ). Randomized controlled trials report equivocal findings (P  = 0.54–0.63) regarding differences in catheter tip colonizations when catheters are changed at 3- versus  7-day intervals (Category C2 evidence  ).56,57 Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials58 – 62 report equivocal findings for catheter tip colonization when guidewires are used to change catheters compared with the use of new insertion sites (Category C1 evidence  ).

The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that the duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that (1) the clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily; (2) catheters should be promptly removed when deemed no longer clinically necessary; (3) the catheter site should be inspected daily for signs of infection and changed when infection is suspected; and (4) when catheter infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.

Recommendations for Catheter Maintenance.

The duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need. The clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily. Catheters should be removed promptly when no longer deemed clinically necessary. The catheter insertion site should be inspected daily for signs of infection, and the catheter should be changed or removed when catheter insertion site infection is suspected. When a catheter related infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.

Aseptic Techniques Using an Existing Central Venous Catheter for Injection or Aspiration

Aseptic techniques using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration consist of (1) wiping the port with an appropriate antiseptic, (2) capping stopcocks or access ports, and (3) use of needleless catheter connectors or access ports.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether wiping ports or capping stopcocks when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration is associated with a reduced risk for catheter-related infections (Category D evidence  ). Randomized controlled trials comparing needleless connectors with standard caps indicate decreased levels of microbial contamination of stopcock entry ports with needleless connectors (Category A2 evidence  );63,64 no differences in catheter-related bloodstream infection are reported (P  = 0.3–0.9) (Category C2 evidence  ).65,66 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access. The consultants and ASA members agree that needleless ports may be used on a case-by-case basis. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that central venous catheter stopcocks should be capped when not in use.

Recommendations for Aseptic Techniques Using an Existing Central Line.

Catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration. Central venous catheter stopcocks or access ports should be capped when not in use. Needleless catheter access ports may be used on a case-by-case basis.

III. Prevention of Mechanical Trauma or Injury

Interventions intended to prevent mechanical trauma or injury associated with central venous access include, but are not limited to (1) selection of catheter insertion site, (2) positioning the patient for needle insertion and catheter placement, (3) needle insertion and catheter placement, and (4) monitoring for needle, guidewire, and catheter placement.

1. Selection of Catheter Insertion Site.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the subclavian and femoral insertion sites reports that the femoral site had a higher frequency of thrombotic complications in adult patients (Category A3 evidence  ).42 A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the femoral site reports equivocal findings for arterial puncture (P  = 0.35), deep venous thrombosis (P  = 0.62) or hematoma formation (P  = 0.47) (Category C2 evidence  ).43 A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the subclavian site reports equivocal findings for successful venipuncture (P  = 0.03) (Category C2 evidence  ).67 Nonrandomized comparative studies report equivocal findings for arterial puncture, pneumothorax, hematoma, hemothorax, or arrhythmia when the internal jugular insertion site is compared with the subclavian insertion site (Category C3 evidence  ).68 – 70 

Most consultants and ASA members indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter cannulation-related risk of injury or trauma. Most consultants and ASA members also indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of thromboembolic injury or trauma.

Recommendations for Catheter Insertion Site Selection.

Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need and practitioner judgment, experience, and skill. In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications.

2. Positioning the Patient for Needle Insertion and Catheter Placement.

Nonrandomized studies comparing the Trendelenburg (i.e.  , head down) position with the normal supine position indicates that the right internal jugular vein increases in diameter and cross-sectional area to a greater extent when adult patients are placed in the Trendelenburg position (Category B2 evidence  ).71 – 76 One nonrandomized study comparing the Trendelenburg position with the normal supine position in pediatric patients reports an increase in right internal jugular vein diameter only for patients older than 6 yr (Category B2 evidence  ).77 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that, when clinically appropriate and feasible, central vascular access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.

Recommendations for Positioning the Patient for Needle Insertion and Catheter Placement

When clinically appropriate and feasible, central venous access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.

3. Needle Insertion, Wire Placement, and Catheter Placement.

Needle insertion, wire placement, and catheter placement includes (1) selection of catheter size and type, (2) use of a wire-through-thin-wall needle technique (i.e.  , Seldinger technique) versus  a catheter-over-the-needle-then-wire-through-the-catheter technique (i.e.  , modified Seldinger technique), (3) limiting the number of insertion attempts, and (4) introducing two catheters in the same central vein.

Case reports describe severe injury (e.g.  , hemorrhage, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, arterial dissection, neurologic injury including stroke, and severe or lethal airway obstruction) when there is unintentional arterial cannulation with large bore catheters (Category B3 evidence  ).78 – 88 The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether the risk of injury or trauma is associated with the use of a thin-wall needle technique versus  a catheter-over-the needle technique (Category D evidence  ). The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether the risk of injury or trauma is related to the number of insertion attempts (Category D evidence  ). One nonrandomized comparative study reports a higher frequency of dysrhythmia when two central venous catheters are placed in the same vein (right internal jugular) compared with placement of one catheter in the vein (Category B2 evidence  ); no differences in carotid artery puncture (P  = 0.65) or hematoma (P  = 0.48) were noted (Category C3 evidence  ).89 

The consultants agree and the ASA members strongly agree that the selection of catheter type (i.e.  , gauge, length, number of lumens) and composition (e.g.  , polyurethane, Teflon) should be based on the clinical situation, and the skill and experience of the operator. The consultants and ASA members agree that the selection of a modified Seldinger technique versus  a Seldinger technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill and experience of the operator. The consultants and ASA members agree that the number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that the decision to place two central catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendations for Needle Insertion, Wire Placement, and Catheter Placement.

Selection of catheter size (i.e.  , outside diameter) and type should be based on the clinical situation and skill/experience of the operator. Selection of the smallest size catheter appropriate for the clinical situation should be considered. Selection of a thin-wall needle (i.e.  , Seldinger) technique versus  a catheter-over-the-needle (i.e.  , modified Seldinger) technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill/experience of the operator. The decision to use a thin-wall needle technique or a catheter-over-the-needle technique should be based at least in part on the method used to confirm that the wire resides in the vein before a dilator or large-bore catheter is threaded (fig. 1). The Task Force notes that the catheter-over-the-needle technique may provide more stable venous access if manometry is used for venous confirmation. The number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment. The decision to place two catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Fig. 1. Algorithm for central venous insertion and verification. This algorithm compares the thin-wall needle (i.e.  , Seldinger) technique versus  the catheter-over-the needle (i.e.  , Modified-Seldinger) technique in critical safety steps to prevent unintentional arterial placement of a dilator or largebore catheter. The variation between the two techniques reflects mitigation steps for the risk that the thin-wall needle in the Seldinger technique could move out of the vein and into the wall of an artery between the manometry step and the threading of the wire step. ECG = electrocardiography; TEE = transesophageal echocardiography.

4. Guidance and Verification of Needle, Wire, and Catheter Placement.

Guidance for needle, wire, and catheter placement includes ultrasound imaging for the purpose of prepuncture vessel localization (i.e.  , static ultrasound) and ultrasound for vessel localization and guiding the needle to its intended venous location (i.e.  , real time or dynamic ultrasound). Verification of needle, wire, or catheter location includes any one or more of the following methods: (1) ultrasound, (2) manometry, (3) pressure waveform analysis, (4) venous blood gas, (5) fluoroscopy, (6) continuous electrocardiography, (7) transesophageal echocardiography, and (8) chest radiography.

Guidance

Static Ultrasound.

Randomized controlled trials comparing static ultrasound with the anatomic landmark approach for locating the internal jugular vein report a higher first insertion attempt success rate for static ultrasound (Category A3 evidence  );90 findings are equivocal regarding overall successful cannulation rates (P  = 0.025–0.57) (Category C2 evidence  ).90 – 92 In addition, the literature is equivocal regarding subclavian vein access (P  = 0.84) (Category C2 evidence  ) 93 and insufficient for femoral vein access (Category D evidence  ).

The consultants and ASA members agree that static ultrasound imaging should be used in elective situations for prepuncture identification of anatomy and vessel localization when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation; they are equivocal regarding whether static ultrasound imaging should be used when the subclavian vein is selected. The consultants agree and the ASA members are equivocal regarding the use of static ultrasound imaging when the femoral vein is selected.

Real-time Ultrasound.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials94 – 104 indicates that, compared with the anatomic landmark approach, real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture of the internal jugular vein has a higher first insertion attempt success rate, reduced access time, higher overall successful cannulation rate, and decreased rates of arterial puncture (Category A1 evidence  ). Randomized controlled trials report fewer number of insertion attempts with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture of the internal jugular vein (Category A2 evidence  ).97,99,103,104 

For the subclavian vein, randomized controlled trials report fewer insertion attempts with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture (Category A2 evidence  ),105,106 and one randomized clinical trial indicates a higher success rate and reduced access time, with fewer arterial punctures and hematomas compared with the anatomic landmark approach (Category A3 evidence  ).106 

For the femoral vein, a randomized controlled trial reports a higher first-attempt success rate and fewer needle passes with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture compared with the anatomic landmark approach in pediatric patients (Category A3 evidence  ).107 

The consultants agree and the ASA members are equivocal that, when available, real time ultrasound should be used for guidance during venous access when either the internal jugular or femoral veins are selected for cannulation. The consultants and ASA members are equivocal regarding the use of real time ultrasound when the subclavian vein is selected.

Verification

Confirming that the Catheter or Thin-wall Needle Resides in the Vein.

A retrospective observational study reports that manometry can detect arterial punctures not identified by blood flow and color (Category B2 evidence  ).108 The literature is insufficient to address ultrasound, pressure-waveform analysis, blood gas analysis, blood color, or the absence of pulsatile flow as effective methods of confirming catheter or thin-wall needle venous access (Category D evidence  ).

Confirming Venous Residence of the Wire.

An observational study indicates that ultrasound can be used to confirm venous placement of the wire before dilation or final catheterization (Category B2 evidence  ).109 Case reports indicate that transesophageal echocardiography was used to identify guidewire position (Category B3 evidence  ).110 – 112 The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of continuous electrocardiography in confirming venous residence of the wire (Category D evidence  ), although narrow complex electrocardiographic ectopy is recognized by the Task Force as an indicator of venous location of the wire. The literature is insufficient to address fluoroscopy as an effective method to confirm venous residence of the wire (Category D evidence  ); the Task Force believes that fluoroscopy may be used.

Confirming Residence of the Catheter in the Venous System.

Studies with observational findings indicate that fluoroscopy113,115 and chest radiography115 – 125 are useful in identifying the position of the catheter tip (Category B2 evidence  ). Randomized controlled trials indicate that continuous electrocardiography is effective in identifying proper catheter tip placement compared with not using electrocardiography (Category A2 evidence  ).115,126,127 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that before insertion of a dilator or large- bore catheter over a wire, venous access should be confirmed for the catheter or thin-wall needle that accesses the vein. The Task Force believes that blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon to confirm venous access. The consultants agree and ASA members are equivocal that venous access should be confirmed for the wire that subsequently resides in the vein after traveling through a catheter or thin-wall needle before insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter over a wire. The consultants and ASA members agree that, when feasible, both the location of the catheter or thin-wall needle and wire should be confirmed.

The consultants and ASA members agree that a chest radiograph should be performed to confirm the location of the catheter tip as soon after catheterization as clinically appropriate. They also agree that, for central venous catheters placed in the operating room, a confirmatory chest radiograph may be performed in the early postoperative period. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that, if a chest radiograph is deferred to the postoperative period, pressure waveform analysis, blood gas analysis, ultrasound, or fluoroscopy should be used to confirm venous positioning of the catheter before use.

Recommendations for Guidance and Verification of Needle, Wire, and Catheter Placement

The following steps are recommended for prevention of mechanical trauma during needle, wire, and catheter placement in elective situations:

• Use static ultrasound imaging before prepping and draping for prepuncture identification of anatomy to determine vessel localization and patency when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation. Static ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.
• Use real time ultrasound guidance for vessel localization and venipuncture when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation (see fig. 1). Real-time ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected. The Task Force recognizes that this approach may not be feasible in emergency circumstances or in the presence of other clinical constraints.
• After insertion of a catheter that went over the needle or a thin-wall needle, confirm venous access.8Methods for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein include, but are not limited to, ultrasound, manometry, pressure-waveform analysis, or venous blood gas measurement. Blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein.
• When using the thin-wall needle technique, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. When using the catheter-over-the-needle technique, confirmation that the wire resides in the vein may not be needed (1) when the catheter enters the vein easily and manometry or pressure waveform measurement provides unambiguous confirmation of venous location of the catheter; and (2) when the wire passes through the catheter and enters the vein without difficulty. If there is any uncertainty that the catheter or wire resides in the vein, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. Insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter may then proceed. Methods for confirming that the wire resides in the vein include, but are not limited to, ultrasound (identification of the wire in the vein) or transesophageal echocardiography (identification of the wire in the superior vena cava or right atrium), continuous electrocardiography (identification of narrow-complex ectopy), or fluoroscopy.
• After final catheterization and before use, confirm residence of the catheter in the venous system as soon as clinically appropriate. Methods for confirming that the catheter is still in the venous system after catheterization and before use include manometry or pressure waveform measurement.
• Confirm the final position of the catheter tip as soon as clinically appropriate. Methods for confirming the position of the catheter tip include chest radiography, fluoroscopy, or continuous electrocardiography. For central venous catheters placed in the operating room, perform the chest radiograph no later than the early postoperative period to confirm the position of the catheter tip.

IV. Management of Arterial Trauma or Injury Arising from Central Venous Catheterization

Case reports of adult patients with arterial puncture by a large bore catheter/vessel dilator during attempted central venous catheterization indicate severe complications (e.g.  , cerebral infarction, arteriovenous fistula, hemothorax) after immediate catheter removal; no such complications were reported for adult patients whose catheters were left in place before surgical consultation and repair (Category B3 evidence  ).80,86 

The consultants and ASA members agree that, when unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a large-bore catheter occurs, the catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon or vascular surgeon should be consulted. When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a large-bore catheter occurs, the SPA members indicate that the catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, vascular surgeon, or interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted before deciding on whether to remove the catheter, either surgically or nonsurgically, as follows: 54.9% (for neonates), 43.8% (for infants), and 30.0% (for children). SPA members indicating that the catheter may be nonsurgically removed without consultation is as follows: 45.1% (for neonates), 56.2% (for infants), and 70.0% (for children). The Task Force agrees that the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding the relative risks and benefits of proceeding with elective surgery after an arterial vessel has sustained unintended injury by a dilator or large-bore catheter.

Recommendations for Management of Arterial Trauma or Injury Arising from Central Venous Access.

When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a dilator or large-bore catheter occurs, the dilator or catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, a vascular surgeon, or an interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted regarding surgical or nonsurgical catheter removal for adults. For neonates, infants, and children the decision to leave the catheter in place and obtain consultation or to remove the catheter nonsurgically should be based on practitioner judgment and experience. After the injury has been evaluated and a treatment plan has been executed, the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding relative risks and benefits of proceeding with the elective surgery versus  deferring surgery to allow for a period of patient observation.

Appendix 1: Summary of Recommendations Resource Preparation

• Central venous catheterization should be performed in an environment that permits use of aseptic techniques.
• A standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access.
• A checklist or protocol should be used for placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.
• An assistant should be used during placement of a central venous catheter.

Prevention of Infectious Complications

• For immunocompromised patients and high-risk neonates, administer intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis.
  • Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.
• In preparation for the placement of central venous catheters, use aseptic techniques (e.g.  , hand washing) and maximal barrier precautions (e.g.  , sterile gowns, sterile gloves, caps, masks covering both mouth and nose, and full-body patient drapes).
• A chlorhexidine-containing solution should be used for skin preparation in adults, infants, and children.
  • For neonates, the use of a chlorhexidine-containing solution for skin preparation should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.
  • If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used as alternatives.
  • Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.
• If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used. Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.
• Catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine should be used for selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use.
  • Catheters containing antimicrobial agents are not a substitute for additional infection precautions.
• Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need.
  • An insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated (e.g.  , burned or infected skin, inguinal area, adjacent to tracheostomy or open surgical wound).
  • In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of infection.
• The use of sutures, staples, or tape for catheter fixation should be determined on a local or institutional basis.
• Transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection.
  • Unless contraindicated, dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in adults, infants, and children.
  • For neonates, the use of transparent or sponge dressings containing chlorhexidine should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.
• The duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need.
  • The clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily.
  • Catheters should be removed promptly when no longer deemed clinically necessary.
• The catheter insertion site should be inspected daily for signs of infection.
  • The catheter should be changed or removed when catheter insertion site infection is suspected.
• When a catheter-related infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.
• Catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration.
• Central venous catheter stopcocks or access ports should be capped when not in use.
• Needleless catheter access ports may be used on a case-by-case basis.

Prevention of Mechanical Trauma or Injury

• Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need and practitioner judgment, experience, and skill.
  • In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications.
• When clinically appropriate and feasible, central venous access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.
• Selection of catheter size (i.e.  , outside diameter) and type should be based on the clinical situation and skill/experience of the operator.
  • Selection of the smallest size catheter appropriate for the clinical situation should be considered.
• Selection of a thin-wall needle (a wire-through-thin-wall-needle, or Seldinger) technique versus  a catheter-over-the-needle (a catheter-over-the-needle-then-wire-through-the-catheter, or Modified Seldinger) technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill/experience of the operator.
  • The decision to use a thin-wall needle technique or a catheter-over-the-needle technique should be based at least in part on the method used to confirm that the wire resides in the vein before a dilator or large-bore catheter is threaded.
  • The catheter-over-the-needle technique may provide more stable venous access if manometry is used for venous confirmation.
• The number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment.
• The decision to place two catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.
• Use static ultrasound imaging in elective situations before prepping and draping for prepuncture identification of anatomy to determine vessel localization and patency when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation.
  • Static ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.
• Use real-time ultrasound guidance for vessel localization and venipuncture when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation.
  • Real-time ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.
  • Real-time ultrasound may not be feasible in emergency circumstances or in the presence of other clinical constraints.
• After insertion of a catheter that went over the needle or a thin-wall needle, confirm venous access.8
  • Methods for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein include, but are not limited to: ultrasound, manometry, pressure-waveform analysis, or venous blood gas measurement.
  • Blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein.
• When using the thin-wall needle technique, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded.
• When using the catheter-over-the-needle technique, confirmation that the wire resides in the vein may not be needed (1) when the catheter enters the vein easily and manometry or pressure waveform measurement provides unambiguous confirmation of venous location of the catheter, and (2) when the wire passes through the catheter and enters the vein without difficulty.
  • If there is any uncertainty that the catheter or wire resides in the vein, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. Insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter may then proceed.
  • Methods for confirming that the wire resides in the vein include, but are not limited to surface ultrasound (identification of the wire in the vein) or transesophageal echocardiography (identification of the wire in the superior vena cava or right atrium), continuous electrocardiography (identification of narrow-complex ectopy), or fluoroscopy.
• After final catheterization and before use, confirm residence of the catheter in the venous system as soon as clinically appropriate.
  • Methods for confirming that the catheter is still in the venous system after catheterization and before use include waveform manometry or pressure measurement.
• Confirm the final position of the catheter tip as soon as clinically appropriate.
  • Methods for confirming the position of the catheter tip include chest radiography, fluoroscopy, or continuous electrocardiography.
• For central venous catheters placed in the operating room, perform the chest radiograph no later than the early postoperative period to confirm the position of the catheter tip.

Management of Arterial Trauma or Injury Arising from Central Venous Catheterization

• When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a dilator or large-bore catheter occurs, the dilator or catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, a vascular surgeon, or an interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted regarding surgical or nonsurgical catheter removal for adults.
  • For neonates, infants, and children, the decision to leave the catheter in place and obtain consultation or to remove the catheter nonsurgically should be based on practitioner judgment and experience.
• After the injury has been evaluated and a treatment plan has been executed, the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding relative risks and benefits of proceeding with the elective surgery versus  deferring surgery for a period of patient observation.

Appendix 2. Example of a Standardized Equipment Cart for Central Venous Catheterization for Adult Patients

Appendix 3. Example of a Central Venous Catheterization Checklist

Table.

Appendix 5: Methods and Analyses State of the Literature

For these Guidelines, a literature review was used in combination with opinions obtained from expert consultants and other sources (e.g.  , ASA members, SPA members, open forums, Internet postings). Both the literature review and opinion data were based on evidence linkages, or statements regarding potential relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. The interventions listed below were examined to assess their effect on a variety of outcomes related to central venous catheterization.

Resource Preparation 

• Selection of a Sterile Environment
• Availability of a standardized equipment set
• Use of a checklist or protocol for placement and maintenance
• Use of an assistant for placement

Prevention of Infectious Complications 

• Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis
• Aseptic techniques
• Aseptic preparation
  • Hand washing, sterile full-body drapes, sterile gown, gloves, mask, cap
• Skin preparation
  • Chlorhexidine versus  povidone-iodine
• Aseptic preparation with versus  without alcohol
• Selection of catheter coatings or impregnation
  • Antibiotic-coated catheters versus  no coating
  • Silver-impregnated catheters versus  no coating
  • Chlorhexidine combined with silver sulfadiazine catheter coating versus  no coating
• Selection of catheter insertion site
  • Internal jugular
  • Subclavian
  • Femoral
  • Selecting a potentially uncontaminated insertion site
• Catheter fixation
  • Suture, staple, or tape
• Insertion site dressings
  • Clear plastic, chlorhexidine, gauze and tape, cyanoacrylate, antimicrobial dressings, antibiotic ointment
• Catheter maintenance
  • Long-term versus  short-term catheterization
  • Frequency of insertion site inspection for signs of infection
• Changing catheters
  • Specified time intervals
  • Specified time interval versus  no specified time interval (i.e.  , as needed)
  • One specified time interval versus  another specified time interval
  • Changing a catheter over a wire versus  a new site
• Aseptic techniques using an existing central line for injection or aspiration
  • Wiping ports with alcohol
  • Capping stopcocks
  • Needleless connectors or access ports

Prevention of Mechanical Trauma or Injury 

• Selection of catheter insertion site
  • Internal jugular
  • Subclavian
  • Femoral
• Trendelenburg versus  supine position
• Needle insertion and catheter placement
• Selection of catheter type (e.g.  , double lumen, triple lumen, Cordis)
  • Selection of a large-bore catheter
  • Placement of two catheters in the same vein
  • Use of a Seldinger technique versus  a modified Seldinger technique
  • Limiting number of insertion attempts
• Guidance of needle, wire and catheter placement
  • Static ultrasound versus  no ultrasound (i.e.  , anatomic landmarks)
  • Real-time ultrasound guidance versus  no ultrasound
• Verification of placement
  • Manometry versus  direct pressure measurement (via  pressure transducer)
  • Continuous electrocardiogram
  • Fluoroscopy
  • Venous blood gas
  • Transesophageal echocardiography
  • Chest radiography

Management of Trauma or Injury Arising from Central Venous Catheterization 

• Not removing versus  removing central venous catheter on evidence of arterial puncture

For the literature review, potentially relevant clinical studies were identified via  electronic and manual searches of the literature. The electronic and manual searches covered a 44-yr period from 1968 through 2011. More than 2,000 citations were initially identified, yielding a total of 671 nonoverlapping articles that addressed topics related to the evidence linkages. After review of the articles, 383 studies did not provide direct evidence, and were subsequently eliminated. A total of 288 articles contained direct linkage-related evidence. A complete bibliography used to develop these Guidelines, organized by section, is available as Supplemental Digital Content 2, .

Initially, each pertinent outcome reported in a study was classified as supporting an evidence linkage, refuting a linkage, or equivocal. The results were then summarized to obtain a directional assessment for each evidence linkage before conducting formal meta-analyses. Literature pertaining to five evidence linkages contained enough studies with well-defined experimental designs and statistical information sufficient for meta-analyses (table 1). These linkages were (1) antimicrobial catheters, (2) silver sulfadiazine catheter coatings, (3) chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine catheter coatings, (4) changing a catheter over a wire versus  a new site, and (5) ultrasound guidance for venipuncture.

Table 1. Meta-analysis Summary

General variance-based effect-size estimates or combined probability tests were obtained for continuous outcome measures, and Mantel-Haenszel odds-ratios were obtained for dichotomous outcome measures. Two combined probability tests were employed as follows: (1) the Fisher combined test, producing chi-square values based on logarithmic transformations of the reported P  values from the independent studies, and (2) the Stouffer combined test, providing weighted representation of the studies by weighting each of the standard normal deviates by the size of the sample. An odds-ratio procedure based on the Mantel-Haenszel method for combining study results using 2 × 2 tables was used with outcome frequency information. An acceptable significance level was set at P  < 0.01 (one-tailed). Tests for heterogeneity of the independent studies were conducted to assure consistency among the study results. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects odds ratios were obtained when significant heterogeneity was found (P  < 0.01). To control for potential publishing bias, a “fail-safe n ” value was calculated. No search for unpublished studies was conducted, and no reliability tests for locating research results were done. To be accepted as significant findings, Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios must agree with combined test results whenever both types of data are assessed. In the absence of Mantel-Haenszel odds-ratios, findings from both the Fisher and weighted Stouffer combined tests must agree with each other to be acceptable as significant.

Interobserver agreement among Task Force members and two methodologists was established by interrater reliability testing. Agreement levels using a kappa (κ) statistic for two-rater agreement pairs were as follows: (1) type of study design, κ = 0.70–1.00l; (2) type of analysis, κ = 0.60–0.84; (3) evidence linkage assignment, κ = 0.91–1.00; and (4) literature inclusion for database, κ = 0.65–1.00. Three-rater chance-corrected agreement values were (1) study design, Sav = 0.80, Var (Sav) = 0.006; (2) type of analysis, Sav = 0.70, Var (Sav) = 0.016; (3) linkage assignment, Sav = 0.94, Var (Sav) = 0.002; (4) literature database inclusion, Sav = 0.65, Var (Sav) = 0.034. These values represent moderate to high levels of agreement.

Consensus-based Evidence

Consensus was obtained from multiple sources, including (1) survey opinion from consultants who were selected based on their knowledge or expertise in central venous access, (2) survey opinions solicited from active members of the ASA and SPA, (3) testimony from attendees of publicly-held open forums at two national anesthesia meetings, (4) Internet commentary, and (5) task force opinion and interpretation. The survey rate of return was 41.0% (n = 55 of 134) for the consultants (table 2), 530 surveys were received from active ASA members (table 3), and 251 surveys were received from active SPA members (table 4).

Table 2. Consultant Survey Responses*

Table 3. ASA Member Survey Responses*

Table 4. SPA Member Survey Responses*

An additional survey was sent to the expert consultants asking them to indicate which, if any, of the evidence linkages would change their clinical practices if the Guidelines were instituted. The rate of return was 16% (n = 22 of 134). The percentage of responding consultants expecting no change associated with each linkage were as follows: (1) availability of a standardized equipment set = 91.8%, (2) use of a trained assistant = 83.7%, (3) use of a checklist or protocol for placement and maintenance = 75.5%, (4) use of bundles that include a checklist or protocol = 87.8%, (5) intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis = 93.9%, (6) aseptic preparation (e.g.  , hand washing, caps, masks) = 98.0%, (8) skin preparation = 98.0%, (9) selection of catheters with antibiotic or antiseptic coatings/impregnation = 89.8%, (10) selection of catheter insertion site for prevention of infection = 100%, (11) catheter fixation methods = 89.8%, (12) insertion site dressings = 100%, (13) catheter maintenance = 100%, (14) aseptic techniques using an existing central line for injection or aspiration = 95.9%, (15) selection of catheter insertion site for prevention of mechanical trauma or injury = 100%, (16) Trendelenburg versus  supine patient positioning for neck or chest venous access = 100%, (17) needle insertion and catheter placement = 100%, (18) guidance of needle, wire, and catheter placement = 89.8%, (19) verification of needle puncture and placement = 98.0%, (20) management of trauma or injury = 100%.

Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that the Guidelines would have no effect on the amount of time spent on a typical case, and 43% indicated that there would be an increase of the amount of time spent on a typical case with the implementation of these Guidelines. Seventy-four percent indicated that new equipment, supplies, or training would not be needed to implement the Guidelines, and 78% indicated that implementation of the Guidelines would not require changes in practice that would affect costs.

Combined Sources of Evidence

Evidence for these Guidelines was formally collected from multiple sources, including randomized controlled trials, observational literature, surveys of expert consultants, and randomly selected samples of ASA and SPA members. This information is summarized in table 5, with a brief description of each corresponding recommendation.

Table 5. Evidence Summary*

         

                                       

References‡‡

Chua C, Wisniewski T, Ramos A, Schlepp M, Fildes JJ, Kuhls DA: Multidisciplinary trauma intensive care unit checklist: Impact on infection rates. J Trauma Nurs 2010; 17: 163–6

Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, Hobson D, Earsing K, Farley JE, Milanovich S, Garrett-Mayer E, Winters BD, Rubin HR, Dorman T, Perl TM: Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:2014–20

Higuera F, Rosenthal VD, Duarte P, Ruiz J, Franco G, Safdar N: The effect of process control on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections and mortality in intensive care units in Mexico. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2022–7

Miller MR, Griswold M, Harris JM 2nd, Yenokyan G, Huskins WC, Moss M, Rice TB, Ridling D, Campbell D, Margolis P, Muething S, Brilli RJ: Decreasing PICU catheter-associated bloodstream infections: NACHRI's quality transformation efforts. Pediatrics 2010; 125:206–13

Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, Sexton B, Hyzy R, Welsh R, Roth G, Bander J, Kepros J, Goeschel C: An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2725–32

Schulman J, Stricof R, Stevens TP, Horgan M, Gase K, Holzman IR, Koppel RI, Nafday S, Gibbs K, Angert R, Simmonds A, Furdon SA, Saiman L, New York State Regional Perinatal Care Centers: Statewide NICU central-line-associated bloodstream infection rates decline after bundles and checklists. Pediatrics 2011; 127:436–44

Warren DK, Cosgrove SE, Diekema DJ, Zuccotti G, Climo MW, Bolon MK, Tokars JI, Noskin GA, Wong ES, Sepkowitz KA, Herwaldt LA, Perl TM, Solomon SL, Fraser VJ, Prevension Epicenter Program: A multicenter intervention to prevent catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27:662–9

Boorman D: Today's electronic checklists reduce likelihood of crew errors and help prevent mishaps. ICAO J 2001: 17–20-36

Karl R: Briefings, checklists, geese, and surgical safety. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:8–11

Spafford PS, Sinkin RA, Cox C, Reubens L, Powell KR: Prevention of central venous catheter-related coagulase-negative staphylococcal sepsis in neonates. J Pediatr 1994; 125:259–63

Vassilomanolakis M, Plataniotis G, Koumakis G, Hajichrastou H, Skouteri H, Dova H, Efremidis AP: Central venous catheter-related infections after bone marrow transplantation in patients with malignancies: A prospective study of short-course vancomycin prophylaxis. Bone Marrow Transplant 1995; 15:77–80

Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, Suleiman N, Hill LA, Bruso PA, Marts K, Mansfield PF, Bodey GP: Prevention of central venous catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15:231–8

Maki DG, Ringer M, Alvarado CJ: Prospective randomised trial of povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine for prevention of infection associated with central venous and arterial catheters. Lancet 1991; 338:339–43

Parienti JJ, du Cheyron D, Ramakers M, Malbruny B, Leclercq R, Le Coutour X, Charbonneau P, Members of the NACRE Study Group: Alcoholic providone-iodine to prevent central venous catheter colonization: A randomized unit crossover study. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:708–13

Bach A, Darby D, Böttiger B, Böhrer H, Motsch J, Martin E: Retention of the antibiotic teicoplanin on a hydromer-coated central venous catheter to prevent bacterial colonization in postoperative surgical patients. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22:1066–9

Kamal GD, Pfaller MA, Rempe LE, Jebson PJ: Reduced intravascular catheter infection by antibiotic bonding: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. JAMA 1991; 265:2364–8

Len C, Ruiz-Santana S, Rello J, de la Torre MV, Valls J, Alvarez-Lerma F, Sierra R, Saavedra P, Alvarez-Salgado F: Benefits of minocycline and rifampin-impregnated central venous catheters: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter trial. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1891–9

Thornton J, Todd NJ, Webster NR: Central venous line sepsis in the intensive care unit: A study comparing antibiotic coated catheters with plain catheters. Anaesthesia 1996; 51:1018–20

Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, Abi-Said D, Gabrielli A, Hachem R, Wall M, Harris R, Jones J, Buzaid A, Robertson C, Shenaq S, Curling P, Burke T, Ericsson C: Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections: A randomized, double-blind trial. The Texas Medical Center Catheter Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:267–74

Bong JJ, Kite P, Wilco MH, McMahon MJ: Prevention of catheter related bloodstream infection by silver iontophoretic central venous catheters: A randomised controlled trial. J Clin Pathol 2003; 56:731–5

Boswald M, Lugauer S, Regenfus A, Braun GG, Martus P, Geis C, Scharf J, Bechert T, Greil J, Guggenbichler J-P: Reduced rates of catheter-associated infection by use of a new silver-impregnated central venous catheter. Infection 1999;27:56–60

Hagau N, Studnicska D, Gavrus RL, Csipak G, Hagau R, Slavcovici AV: Central venous catheter colonization and catheter-related bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: A comparison between standard and silver-integrated catheters. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:752–8

Harter C, Salwender HJ, Bach A, Egerer G, Goldschmidt H, Ho AD: Catheter-related infection and thrombosis of the internal jugular vein in hematologic-oncologic patients undergoing chemotherapy: A prospective comparison of silver-coated and uncoated catheters. Cancer 2002; 94:245–51

Kalfon P, de Vaumas C, Samba D, Boulet E, Lefrant JY, Eyraud D, Lherm T, Santoli F, Naija W, Riou B: Comparison of silver-impregnated with standard multi-lumen central venous catheters in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:1032–9

Bach A, Schmidt H, Bttiger B, Schreiber B, Bhrer H, Motsch J, Martin E, Sonntag HG: Retention of antibacterial activity and bacterial colonization of antiseptic-bonded central venous catheters. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37:315–22

Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Sollet JP, Cochard JF, Cohen Y, Nitenberg G: Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection with newer chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters: A randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:837–43

Ciresi DL, Albrecht RM, Volkers PA, Scholten DJ: Failure of antiseptic bonding to prevent central venous catheter-related infection and sepsis. Am Surg 1996; 62:641–6

Collin GR: Decreasing catheter colonization through the use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter: A continuous quality improvement project. Chest 1999; 115:1632–40

George SJ, Vuddamalay P, Boscoe MJ: Antiseptic-impregnated central venous catheters reduce the incidence of bacterial colonization and associated infection in immunocompromised transplant patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997; 14:428–31

Hannan M, Juste RN, Umasanker S, Glendenning A, Nightingale C, Azadian B, Soni N: Antiseptic-bonded central venous catheters and bacterial colonisation. Anaesthesia 1999; 54:868–72

Heard SO, Wagle M, Vijayakumar E, McLean S, Brueggemann A, Napolitano LM, Edwards LP, O'Connell FM, Puyana JC, Doern GV: Influence of triple-lumen central venous catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on the incidence of catheter-related bacteremia. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:81–7

Maki DG, Stolz SM, Wheeler S, Mermel LA: Prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by use of an antiseptic-impregnated catheter. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:257–66

Ostendorf T, Meinhold A, Harter C, Salwender H, Egerer G, Geiss HK, Ho AD, Goldschmidt H: Chlorhexidine and silver-sulfadiazine coated central venous catheters in haematological patients–a double-blind, randomised, prospective, controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13:993–1000

Rupp ME, Lisco SJ, Lipsett PA, Perl TM, Keating K, Civetta JM, Mermel LA, Lee D, Dellinger EP, Donahoe M, Giles D, Pfaller MA, Maki DG, Sherertz R: Effect of a second-generation venous catheter impregnated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine on central catheter-related infections: A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:570–80

Tennenberg S, Lieser M, McCurdy B, Boomer G, Howington E, Newman C, Wolf I: A prospective randomized trial of an antibiotic- and antiseptic-coated central venous catheter in the prevention of catheter-related infections. Arch Surg 1997; 132:1348–51

van Heerden PV, Webb SAR, Fong S, Golledge CL, Roberts BL: Central venous catheters revisited: Infection rates and an assessment of the new fibrin analysing system brush. Anaesth Intens Care 1996; 24:330–3

Logghe C, Van Ossel C, D'Hoore W, Ezzedine H, Wauters G, Haxhe JJ: Evaluation of chlorhexidine and silver-sulfadiazine impregnated central venous catheters for the prevention of bloodstream infection in leukaemic patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 1997; 37:145–56

Pemberton LB, Ross V, Cuddy P, Kremer H, Fessler T, McGurk E: No difference in catheter sepsis between standard and antiseptic central venous catheters. A prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 1996; 131:986–9

Oda T, Hamasaki J, Kanda N, Mikami K: Anaphylactic shock induced by an antiseptic-coated central venous catheter. ANESTHESIOLOGY 1997; 87:1242–4

Stephens R, Mythen M, Kallis P, Davies DW, Egner W, Rickards A: Two episodes of life-threatening anaphylaxis in the same patient to a chlorhexidine-sulphadiazine-coated central venous catheter. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87:306–8

Terazawa E, Shimonaka H, Nagase K, Masue T, Dohi S: Severe anaphylactic reaction due to a chlorhexidine-impregnated central venous catheter. ANESTHESIOLOGY 1998; 89:1296–8

Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, Lefrant JY, Raffy B, Barre E, Rigaud JP, Casciani D, Misset B, Bosquet C, Outin H, Brun-Buisson C, Nitenberg G, French Catheter Study Group in Intensive Care: Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 286:700–7

Parienti JJ, Thirion M, Mégarbane B, Souweine B, Ouchikhe A, Polito A, Forel JM, Marqué S, Misset B, Airapetian N, Daurel C, Mira JP, Ramakers M, du Cheyron D, Le Coutour X, Daubin C, Charbonneau P, Members of the Cathedia Study Group: Femoral vs  jugular venous catheterization and risk of nosocomial events in adults requiring acute renal replacement therapy: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299:2413–22

Collignon P, Soni N, Pearson I, Sorrell T, Woods P: Sepsis associated with central vein catheters in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 1988; 14:227–31

Gil RT, Kruse JA, Thill-Baharozian MC, Carlson RW: Triple- vs  single-lumen central venous catheters: A prospective study in a critically ill population. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149:1139–43

Gowardman JR, Robertson IK, Parkes S, Rickard CM: Influence of insertion site on central venous catheter colonization and bloodstream infection rates. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:1038–45

Lorente L, Henry C, Martín MM, Jiménez A, Mora ML: Central venous catheter-related infection in a prospective and observational study of 2,595 catheters. Crit Care 2005; 9:R631–5

McKinley S, Mackenzie A, Finfer S, Ward R, Penfold J: Incidence and predictors of central venous catheter related infection in intensive care patients. Anaesth Intensive Care 1999; 27:164–9

Ramos GE, Bolgiani AN, Patio O, Prezzavento GE, Guastavino P, Durlach R, Fernandez Canigia LB, Benaim F: Catheter infection risk related to the distance between insertion site and burned area. J Burn Care Rehabil 2002; 23:266–71

Levy I, Katz J, Solter E, Samra Z, Vidne B, Birk E, Ashkenazi S, Dagan O: Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prevention of colonization of central venous catheters in infants and children: A randomized controlled study. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:676–9

Roberts B, Cheung D: Biopatch: A new concept in antimicrobial dressings for invasive devices. Aust Crit Care 1998; 11:16–9

Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, Geffroy A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Pease S, Herault MC, Haouache H, Calvino-Gunther S, Gestin B, Armand-Lefevre L, Leflon V, Chaplain C, Benali A, Francais A, Adrie C, Zahar JR, Thuong M, Arrault X, Croize J, Lucet JC, Dressing Study Group: Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically ill adults: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 301:1231–41

Madeo M, Martin CR, Turner C, Kirkby V, Thompson DR: A randomized trial comparing Arglaes (a transparent dressing containing silver ions) to Tegaderm (a transparent polyurethane dressing) for dressing peripheral arterial catheters and central vascular catheters. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1998; 14:187–91

Garland JS, Alex CP, Mueller CD, Otten D, Shivpuri C, Harris MC, Naples M, Pellegrini J, Buck RK, McAuliffe TL, Goldmann DA, Maki DG: A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates. Pediatrics 2001; 107:1431–6

Moro ML, Viganò EF, Cozzi Lepri A: Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units: The Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections Study Group. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994; 15:253–64

Bonawitz SC, Hammell EJ, Kirkpatrick JR: Prevention of central venous catheter sepsis: A prospective randomized trial. Am Surg 1991; 57:618–23

Kowalewska-Grochowska K, Richards R, Moysa GL, Lam K, Costerton JW, King EG: Guidewire catheter change in central venous catheter biofilm formation in a burn population. Chest 1991; 100:1090–5

Cobb DK, High KP, Sawyer RG, Sable CA, Adams RB, Lindley DA, Pruett TL, Schwenzer KJ, Farr BM: A controlled trial of scheduled replacement of central venous and pulmonary-artery catheters. N Engl J Med 1992; 327:1062–8

Eyer S, Brummitt C, Crossley K, Siegel R, Cerra F: Catheter-related sepsis: Prospective, randomized study of three methods of long-term catheter maintenance. Crit Care Med 1990; 18:1073–9

Kealey GP, Chang P, Heinle J, Rosenquist MD, Lewis RW: Prospective comparison of two management strategies of central venous catheters in burn patients. J Trauma 1995; 38:344–9

Michel LA, Bradpiece HA, Randour P, Pouthier F: Safety of central venous catheter change over guidewire for suspected catheter-related sepsis. A prospective randomized trial. Int Surg 1988; 73:180–6

Snyder RH, Archer FJ, Endy T, Allen TW, Condon B, Kaiser J, Whatmore D, Harrington G, McDermott CJ: Catheter infection: A comparison of two catheter maintenance techniques. Ann Surg 1988; 208:651–3

Casey AL, Burnell S, Whinn H, Worthington T, Faroqui MH, Elliott TS: A prospective clinical trial to evaluate the microbial barrier of a needleless connector. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65:212–8

Casey AL, Worthington T, Lambert PA, Quinn D, Faroqui MH, Elliott TS: A randomized, prospective clinical trial to assess the potential infection risk associated with the PosiFlow needleless connector. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54:288–93

Lucet JC, Hayon J, Bruneel F, Dumoulin JL, Joly-Guillou ML: Microbiological evaluation of central venous catheter administration hubs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:40–2

Ybenes JC, Vidaur L, Serra-Prat M, Sirvent JM, Batlle J, Motje M, Bonet A, Palomar M: Prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection in critically ill patients using a disinfectable, needle-free connector: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control 2004; 32:291–5

Kaiser CW, Koornick AR, Smith N, Soroff HS: Choice of route for central venous cannulation: Subclavian or internal jugular vein? A prospective randomized study. J Surg Oncol 1981; 17:345–54

Eisenhauer ED, Derveloy RJ, Hastings PR: Prospective evaluation of central venous pressure (CVP) catheters in a large city-county hospital. Ann Surg 1982; 196:560

Molgaard O, Nielsen MS, Handberg BB, Jensen JM, Kjaergaard J, Juul N: Routine X-ray control of upper central venous lines: Is it necessary? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004; 48:685–9

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;146:259–61

Armstrong PJ, Sutherland R, Scott DH: The effect of position and different manoeuvres on the internal jugular vein diameter size. Acta Anaesth Scand 1994; 38:229–31

Bellazzini MA, Rankin PM, Gangnon RE, Bjoernsen LP: Ultrasound validation of maneuvers to increase internal jugular vein cross-sectional area and decrease compressibility. Am J Emerg Med 2009; 27:454–9

Modeliar SS, Sevestre MA, de Cagny B, Slama M: Ultrasound evaluation of central veins in the intensive care unit: Effects of dynamic manoeuvres. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:333–8

Parry G: Trendelenburg position, head elevation and a midline position optimize right internal jugular vein diameter. Can J Anaesth 2004; 51:379–81

Suarez T, Baerwald JP, Kraus C: Central venous access: The effects of approach, position, and head rotation on internal jugular vein cross-sectional area. Anesth Analg 2002; 95:1519–24

Tugrul M, Camci E, Pembeci K, Al-Darsani A, Telci L: Relationship between peripheral and central venous pressures in different patient positions, catheter sizes, and insertion sites. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesthesia 2004; 18:446–50

Sayin MM, Mercan A, Koner O, Ture H, Celebi S, Sozubir S, Aykac B: Internal jugular vein diameter in pediatric patients: Are the J-shaped guidewire diameters bigger than internal jugular vein? An evaluation with ultrasound Paediatr Anaesth 2008; 18:745–51

Brown CQ: Inadvertent prolonged cannulation of the carotid artery. Anesth Analg 1982; 61:150–2

Digby S: Fatal respiratory obstruction following insertion of a central venous line. Anaesthesia 1994; 49:1013–4

Guilbert MC, Elkouri S, Bracco D, Corriveau MM, Beaudoin N, Dubois MJ, Bruneau L, Blair JF: Arterial trauma during central venous catheter insertion: Case series, review and proposed algorithm. J Vasc Surg 2008; 48:918–25, discussion 925

Farhat K, Nakhjavan K, Cope C, Yazdanfar S, Fernandez J, Gooch A, Goldberg H: Iatrogenic arteriovenous fistula: A complicaton of percutaneous subclavian vein puncture. Chest 1975; 67:480–2

Kulvatunyou N, Heard SO, Bankey PE: A subclavian artery injury, secondary to internal jugular vein cannulation, is a predictable right-sided phenomenon. Anesth Analg 2002; 95:564–6

Maschke SP, Rogove HJ: Cardiac tamponade associated with a multilumen central venous catheter. Crit Care Med 1984; 12:611–3

Nicholson T, Ettles D, Robinson G: Managing inadvertent arterial catheterization during central venous access procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2004; 27:21–5

Powell H, Beechey AP: Internal jugular catheterisation: Case report of a potentially fatal hazard. Anaesthesia 1990; 45:458–9

Shah PM, Babu SC, Goyal A, Mateo RB, Madden RE: Arterial misplacement of large-caliber cannulas during jugular vein catheterization: Case for surgical management. Am Coll Surg 2004; 198:939–44

Sloan MA, Mueller JD, Adelman LS, Caplan LR: Fatal brainstem stroke following internal jugular vein catheterization. Neurology 1991; 41:1092–5

Zaidi NA, Khan M, Naqvi HI, Kamal RS: Cerebral infarct following central venous cannulation. Anaesthesia 1998; 53:186–91

Reeves ST, Roy RC, Dorman BH, Fishman RL, Pinosky ML: The incidence of complications after the double-catheter technique for cannulation of the right internal jugular vein in a university teaching hospital. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:1073–6

Milling TJ Jr., Rose J, Briggs WM, Birkhahn R, Gaeta TJ, Bove JJ, Melniker LA: Randomized, controlled clinical trial of point-of-care limited ultrasonography assistance of central venous cannulation: The Third Sonography Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP-3) Trial. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:1764–9

Alderson PJ, Burrows FA, Stemp LI, Holtby HM: Use of ultrasound to evaluate internal jugular vein anatomy and to facilitate central venous cannulation in paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 1993; 70:145–8

Hayashi H, Amano M: Does ultrasound imaging before puncture facilitate internal jugular vein cannulation? Prospective randomized comparison with landmark-guided puncture in ventilated patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2002; 16:572–5

Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM: Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1735–8

Bansal R, Agarwal SK, Tiwari SC, Dash SC: A prospective randomized study to compare ultrasound-guided with nonultrasound-guided double lumen internal jugular catheter insertion as a temporary hemodialysis access. Ren Fail 2005; 27:561–4

Cajozzo M, Quintini G, Cocchiera G, Greco G, Vaglica R, Pezzano G, Barbera V, Modica G: Comparison of central venous catheterization with and without ultrasound guide. Transfus Apher Sci 2004; 31:199–202

Grebenik CR, Boyce A, Sinclair ME, Evans RD, Mason DG, Martin B: NICE guidelines for central venous catheterization in children. Is the evidence base sufficient? Br J Anaesth 2004; 92:827–30

Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, Patrianakos AP, Kouraklis G, Poularas J, Samonis G, Tsoutsos DA, Konstadoulakis MM, Karabinis A: Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: A prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 2006; 10:R162

Koroglu M, Demir M, Koroglu BK, Sezer MT, Akhan O, Yildiz H, Yavuz L, Baykal B, Oyar O: Percutaneous placement of central venous catheters: Comparing the anatomical landmark method with the radiologically guided technique for central venous catheterization through the internal jugular vein in emergency hemodialysis patients. Acta Radiol 2006; 47:43–7

Mallory DL, McGee WT, Shawker TH, Brenner M, Bailey KR, Evans RG, Parker MM, Farmer JC, Parillo JE: Ultrasound guidance improves the success rate of internal jugular vein cannulation: A prospective, randomized trial. Chest 1990; 98:157–60

Slama M, Novara A, Safavian A, Ossart M, Safar M, Fagon JY: Improvement of internal jugular vein cannulation using an ultrasound-guided technique. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23:916–9

Teichgrber UKM, Benter T, Gebel M, Manns MP: A sonographically guided technique for central venous access. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:731–3

Troianos CA, Jobes DR, Ellison N: Ultrasound-guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein: A prospective, randomized study. Anesth Analg 1991; 72:823–6

Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE: Comparison of three techniques for internal jugular vein cannulation in infants. Paediatr Anaesth 2000; 10:505–11

Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE: Ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous cannulation in infants: A prospective comparison with the traditional palpation method. ANESTHESIOLOGY 1999; 91:71–7

Gualtieri E, Deppe SA, Sipperly ME, Thompson DR: Subclavian venous catheterization: Greater success rate for less experienced operators using ultrasound guidance. Crit Care Med 1995; 23:692–7

Fragou M, Gravvanis A, Dimitriou V, Papalois A, Kouraklis G, Karabinis A, Saranteas T, Poularas J, Papanikolaou J, Davlouros P, Labropoulos N, Karakitsos D: Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: A propsective randomized study. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:1607–12

Aouad MT, Kanazi GE, Abdallah FW, Moukaddem FH, Turbay MJ, Obeid MY, Siddik-Sayyid SM: Femoral vein cannulation performed by residents: A comparison between ultrasound-guided and landmark technique in infants and children undergoing cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 2010; 111:724–8

Ezaru CS, Mangione MP, Oravitz TM, Ibinson JW, Bjerke RJ:Eliminating arterial injury during central venous catheterization using manometry. Anesth Analg 2009; 109:130–4

Gillman LM, Blaivas M, Lord J, Al-Kadi A, Kirkpatrick W: Ultrasound confirmation of guidewire position may eliminate accidental arterial dilatation during central venous cannulation. Scand J Trauma 2010; 18:39

Gu X, Paulsen W, Tisnado J, He Y, Li Z, Nixon JV: Malposition of a central venous catheter in the right main pulmonary artery detected by transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009; 22:1420

Mahmood F, Sundar S, Khabbaz K: Misplacement of a guidewire diagnosed by transesophageal echocardiography. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2007; 21:420–1

Sawchuk C, Fayad A: Confirmation of internal jugular guide wire position utilizing transesophageal echocardiography. Can J Anaesth 2001; 48:688–90

Janik JE, Cothren CC, Janik JS, Hendrickson RJ, Bensard DD, Partrick DA, Karrer FM: Is a routine chest x-ray necessary for children after fluoroscopically assisted central venous access? J Pediatr Surg 2003; 38:1199–202

Lucey B, Varghese JC, Haslam P, Lee MJ: Routine chest radiographs after central line insertion: Mandatory postprocedural evaluation or unnecessary waste of resources? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1999; 22:381–4

Gebhard RE, Szmuk P, Pivalizza EG, Melnikov V, Vogt C, Warters RD: The accuracy of electrocardiogram-controlled central line placement. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:65–70

Abood GJ, Davis KA, Esposito TJ, Luchette FA, Gamelli RL: Comparison of routine chest radiograph versus  clinician judgment to determine adequate central line placement in critically ill patients. J Trauma 2007; 63:50–6

Amshel CE, Palesty JA, Dudrick SJ: Are chest X-rays mandatory following central venous recatheterization over a wire? Am Surg 1998; 64:499–501; discussion 501–2

Bailey SH, Shapiro SB, Mone MC, Saffle JR, Morris SE, Barton RG: Is immediate chest radiograph necessary after central venous catheter placement in a surgical intensive care unit? Am J Surg 2000; 180:517–21; discussion 521–2

Cullinane DC, Parkus DE, Reddy VS, Nunn CR, Rutherford EJ: The futility of chest roentgenograms following routine central venous line changes. Am J Surg 1998; 176:283–5

Frassinelli P, Pasquale MD, Cipolle MD, Rhodes M: Utility of chest radiographs after guidewire exchanges of central venous catheters. Crit Care Med 1998; 26:611–5

Lessnau KD: Is chest radiography necessary after uncomplicated insertion of a triple-lumen catheter in the right internal jugular vein, using the anterior approach? Chest 2005; 127:220–3

Maury E, Guglielminotti J, Alzieu M, Guidet B, Offenstadt G: Ultrasonic examination: An alternative to chest radiography after central venous catheter insertion? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164:403–5

Riblet JL, Shillinglaw W, Goldberg AJ, Mitchell K, Sedani KH, Davis FE, Reynolds HN: Utility of the routine chest X-ray after “over-wire” venous catheter changes. Am Surg 1996; 62:1064–5

Weil BR, Ladd AP, Yoder K: Pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade associated with central venous catheters in children: An uncommon but serious and treatable condition. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45:1687–92

Wirsing M, Schummer C, Neumann R, Steenbeck J, Schmidt P, Schummer W: Is traditional reading of the bedside chest radiograph appropriate to detect intraatrial central venous catheter position? Chest 2008; 134:527–33

Francis KR, Picard DL, Fajardo MA, Pizzi WF: Avoiding complications and decreasing costs of central venous catheter placement utilizing electrocardiographic guidance. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 175:208–11

McGee WT, Ackerman BL, Rouben LR, Prasad VM, Bandi V, Mallory DL: Accurate placement of central venous catheters: A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 1993; 21:1118–23

O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, Lipsett PA, Masur H, Mermel LA, Pearson ML, Raad II, Randolph AG, Rupp ME, Saint S, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter related infections. Am J Infect Control 2011; 39(4 Suppl 1):S1–34

Marschall J, Mermel LA, Classen D, Arias KM, Podgorny K, Anderson DJ, Burstin H, Calfee DP, Coffin SE, Dubberke ER, Fraser V, Gerding DN, Griffin FA, Gross P, Kaye KS, Klompas M, Lo E, Nicolle L, Pegues DA, Perl TM, Saint S, Salgado CD, Weinstein RA, Wise R, Yokoe DS: Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29(Suppl 1):S22–30

Institute for Healthcare Improvement: Prevent Central Line Infections How-to Guide. Cambridge, MA; 2008

The Joint Commission Accreditation Program: Hospital: National patient safety goals. . Accessed January 1, 2011

National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters. . Accessed September 2012