↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound-guided or landmark techniques for central venous catheter placement in critically ill children

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
81 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Ultrasound-guided or landmark techniques for central venous catheter placement in critically ill children
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00134-017-4985-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ignacio Oulego-Erroz, Rafael González-Cortes, Patricia García-Soler, Mónica Balaguer-Gargallo, Manuel Frías-Pérez, Juan Mayordomo-Colunga, Ana Llorente-de-la-Fuente, Paula Santos-Herraiz, Juan José Menéndez-Suso, María Sánchez-Porras, Daniel Palanca-Arias, Carmen Clavero-Rubio, Mª Soledad Holanda-Peña, Luis Renter-Valdovinos, Sira Fernández-De-Miguel, Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez, RECANVA collaborative study

Abstract

To assess whether ultrasound guidance improves central venous catheter placement outcomes compared to the landmark technique in critically ill children. A prospective multicentre observational study was carried out in 26 paediatric intensive care units over 6 months. Children 0-18 years old who received a temporary central venous catheter, inserted using either ultrasound or landmark techniques, were eligible. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Secondary outcomes included overall placement success, number of puncture attempts, number of procedures requiring multiple punctures (> 3 punctures), number of procedures requiring punctures at more than one vein site and immediate mechanical complications. To account for potential confounding factors, we used propensity scores. Our primary analysis was based on 1:1 propensity score matching. The association between cannulation technique and outcomes in the matched cohort was estimated using generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects models to account for patient-level and hospital-level confounders. Five hundred central venous catheter-placement procedures involving 354 patients were included. Ultrasound was used for 323 procedures, and the landmark technique was used for 177. Two hundred and sixty-six procedures were matched (133 in the ultrasound group and 133 in the landmark group). Ultrasound was associated with an increase in the first-attempt success rate [46.6 vs. 30%, odds ratio 2.09 (1.26-3.46); p < 0.001], a reduced number of puncture attempts [2 (1-3) vs. 2 (1-4), B coefficient - 0.51 (95% confidence interval - 1.01 to - 0.03), p = 0.035], and fewer overall mechanical complications [12 vs. 22.5%, odds ratio 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.24-0.91), p = 0.025] in the matched cohort. The number of puncture attempts was the main factor associated with overall complications. Compared with the landmark technique, ultrasound guidance was associated with an increased first-attempt success rate, a reduced number of puncture attempts, and fewer complications during central venous catheter placement in critically ill children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#886,056
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#836
of 5,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,759
of 450,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#24
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.