Ultrasound-Guided vein access: which route is safer?
NCT ID NCT03162757
First seen Jun 25, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026 · Updated 1 time
Summary
This study compared two ultrasound-guided methods for inserting a central venous catheter: one through the lower part of the internal jugular vein and the other through the subclavian vein. Researchers wanted to see which approach is more successful and safer. The study involved 210 adults who needed a central line, and it tracked complications like collapsed lung, bleeding, and infection.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.
- What this could lead to
- If successful, this study could help doctors choose the best vein access method, reducing complications like collapsed lung or bleeding.
- What could go wrong
- This is a small pilot study, so results may not apply to all patients. The main risk is that one method might cause more complications than the other.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Study facts
What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.
- Phase
-
Not a phased trial
Phase numbers describe drug development. The registry uses this when they do not apply, as it does for trials of devices, procedures or behaviour changes, and for observational studies.
- Participants
-
210 people
The number who actually took part.
- Started
-
Jan 2017
- Finished
-
Jul 2018
- Lead sponsor
-
Other sponsor
The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.
Who can take part
This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.
- Ages
-
18 years and older
- Sex
-
Anyone
- Healthy volunteers
-
Not accepted
This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.
Show the full entry requirements Hide the full entry requirements
Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.
Inclusion Criteria: * The patient has been, or will be, informed as soon as their state of health allows them to be entered into the study of its objectives, constraints and the patient's rights * The patient have given their free and informed consent and signed the consent form * The patient must be insured or a beneficiary of a health insurance plan * The patient is over 18 years old * The patient needs a venous catheter in the superior vena cava Exclusion Criteria: * The patient is already participating in another interventional study that could influence the results of this study * The patient has participated in another interventional study within the previous 3 months that could influence the results of this study * The patient is in a period of exclusion determined by a previous study * The patient is under judicial protection or is an adult under guardianship * The patient refuses to sign the consent form * Non-echogenic patient * Moribund patient * The patient has a contra-indication to one or other of the approaches: infection of the insertion zone, known thrombosis, severely dyspneic * Patient has severe coagulation problems: PT\<40%, platelets\<50 000 and curable anticoagulation with antiXa \> 0.5 or INR\>3. * Patient has a congenital or acquired deformation at the entry site
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Central venous access are added.
Genom att skicka in godkänner du våra Användarvillkor
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
CHU Nimes
Nîmes, 30029, France