Skip to main content

Table 1 (abstract P159). Peri-procedural factors and the outcomes of CVC placement they correspond with

From: 39th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

 

No complications (N=719)

Complications (N=37)

Total (N=756)

P value

US-guided vs. Landmark technique (N)

247 (56.0%) vs. 194 (44.0%)

20 (76.9%) vs. 6 (23.1%)

267 (57.2%) vs. 200 (42.8%)

0.036

IJV-cannulation vs. SV-cannulation (N)

691 (96.1%) vs. 28 (3.9%)

33 (89.2%) vs. 4 (10.8%)

724 (95.8%) vs. 32 (4.2%)

0.042

Elective insertion vs. Emerency insertion (N)

477 (66.3%) vs. 242 (33.7%)

15 (40.5%) vs. 22 (59.5%)

492 (65.1%) vs. 264 (34.9%)

0.001

  1. Numbers in between brackets indicate percentages of total amount of CVCs in that category. P values portraying correlation of predictive factors and positive outcomes. If the questionnaire was incomplete or data was missing, analyses were performed with the available data. It was unclear in 289 cases if US-guidance or the landmark technique was used to insert the CVC. CVC: central venous cathteter; US: ultrasound; IJV: internal jugular vein; SV: subclavian vein
Back to article page

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535