Advertisement

Critical Ultrasound Journal

, 10:34 | Cite as

Point-of-care ultrasound evaluation and puncture simulation of the internal jugular vein by medical students

  • José Muniz PazeliJr.Email author
  • Ana Luisa Silveira Vieira
  • Rosimary Souza Vicentino
  • Luisa Jabour Pazeli
  • Bernardo Costa Lemos
  • Marinna Marques Rodrigues Saliba
  • Pedro Andrade Mello
  • Maurício Dutra Costa
Open Access
Original article

Abstract

Objectives

To show that medical students can evaluate the internal jugular vein (IJV) and its anatomical variations after rapid and focused training. We also aimed to evaluate the success rate of IJV puncture in simulation following traditional techniques (TTs) and monitored via ultrasound (US).

Materials and methods

Six medical students without experience with US were given 4 h of theoretical–practical training in US, and then evaluated the IJV and common carotid artery (CCA) of 105 patients. They also simulated a puncture of the IJV at a demarcated point, where a TT was theoretically performed.

Results

Adequate images were obtained from 95% of the patients; the IJV, on the right side, was more commonly found in the anterolateral position in relation to the CCA (38%). On the left side, the most commonly position observed was the anterior (36%). The caliber of the IJV relative to the CCA greatly varied. The success rate in the IJV puncture simulation, observed with US, by the TTs was 55%.

Conclusion

The training of medical students to recognize large neck vessels is a simple, quick, and feasible task and that can be integrated into the undergraduate medical curriculum.

Keywords

Central venous catheterization Medical education Point-of-care ultrasound 

Abbreviations

CCA

common carotid artery

IJV

internal jugular vein

POCUS

point-of-care ultrasound

TTs

traditional techniques

US

ultrasound

USGTs

ultrasound-guided techniques

Introduction

Central venous access is the cannulation of a central vein via percutaneous puncture [1]. It is indicated in certain medical situations such as the hemodynamic monitoring of critical ill patients and the infusion of medications, parenteral nutrition, or hemodialysis [2].

Central puncture is typically performed at the jugular, subclavian, or femoral vein [3]. In practice, the internal jugular vein (IJV) is a common site, but recent data show that subclavian puncture is associated with lower rates of infection and thrombosis [4].

Traditionally, puncture of a central vein is performed as the “blind” insertion of a needle following anatomical landmarks [5]. Puncture of the IJV for central venous access was first described in 1969 [6]. Since then, various other approaches have been proposed: anterior, central, and posterior approaches [7, 8].

While these traditional techniques (TTs) based on anatomical markers have been validated, they are associated with failure rates ranging from 5 to 40% [3] and complications such as pneumothorax, hematoma, hemothorax, lesions of nerves, and others. These occur at rates between 5 and 19% [9].

For these reasons, ultrasound (US) has been recommended since the 1980s to guide the procedure, optimizing successful cannulation and minimizing complications [10].

Over the last two decades, US equipment has become progressively more compact and accessible, facilitating its use at the point of care. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is performed and interpreted by the physician in charge wherever the patient is located [11]. Therefore, US is actually an extension of the physical examination, offering the physician a valuable complement to the patient’s propedeutic and monitoring in addition to guiding procedures, thus increasing their safety and efficacy [12, 13].

The use of US for central venous access can considerably reduce its risks and complications [5, 14].

Ultrasound-guided techniques (USGTs) can be quickly assimilated by professionals who have no previous experience. Moureau et al. suggested that supervised training ideally spans 16 to 18 h, although the technique has been mastered in less time [15, 16].

In this study, we aimed to show that medical students can evaluate the IJV and its anatomical variations after rapid and focused training. We also aimed to evaluate the success rate of IJV puncture in simulation following TTs and monitored via US.

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional, observational study used humans and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee from Fundação Hospitalar do Estado de Minas Gerais (FHEMIG) under Protocol Number 59842616.0.0000.5119.

Study settings and population

From November 2016 to April 2017, we enrolled 105 patients hospitalized in the Clinic, Gynecology, and Obstetrics wards at Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Barbacena—Minas Gerais Brazil.

Patients aged at least 18 years of either sex were included. Each indicated agreement to participate in the study by providing their signature or their guardian’s signature on the Informed Consent Form.

Excluded were patients with prior central venous access and those who did not agree to participate. Each patient was stable, without critical disease, and denied a prior central venous access.

Study protocol

Six 4th-year medical students without experience with US were selected from the Barbacena’s School of Medicine and SUPREMA-Faculty of Medical Sciences and Health of Juiz de Fora. They were given 4 h of theoretical–practical training in US coordinated by an intensivist and nephrologist with extensive experience in TTs and USGTs.

The training included four 60-min stages: (a) a theoretical exposition including TTs, the physical principles of US, and USGTs; (b) a practical demonstration of anatomical markers and positioning the transducer; (c) practical training in ultrasonographic visualization of vessels and simulation of puncture via TTs, using each other as models; and (d) four supervised examinations per student and completion of the report.

Ultrasonographic evaluations were performed using a Sonosite Fujifilm MTurbo portable US (Bothell, WA, USA) equipped with a linear transducer with a frequency between 6 and 13 MHz.

Patients were placed in dorsal decubitus at 0º, and the cervical region was exposed via contralateral rotation of the neck. The apex of the triangle, composed of the clavicle and the two borders of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, was determined. The pulse at the common carotid artery (CCA) was verified, and immediately lateral to that point, the site chosen for the TT was marked with a pen (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Identification of the TT puncture point

The US evaluation began by positioning the transducer at the marked point. Then, puncture via a TT was simulated by positioning a flexible cotton-coated rod at the marked point (Fig. 2). The artifact caused by the slight compression of this puncture point was visualized on the US screen and an imaginary line between that point and the position of the patient’s ipsilateral nipple was drawn. This line corresponds to the path the needle would make in an actual puncture guided by anatomical landmarks. If this line passed through the IJV, it was understood that puncture via a TT would have been effective. If the traced line did not cross the vein path, the TT was deemed a failed attempt (Fig. 3). All exams and simulations were filmed and, shortly thereafter, they were analyzed by two physicians with extensive experience in both puncture techniques.
Fig. 2

Simulation of puncture

Fig. 3

Observation of the CCA, IJV and the artifact caused by the compression of the point where the puncture would be performed by the TT. In this case, the puncture would not reach the IJV

The evaluation was fully qualitative, and the following variables were obtained: IJV position relative to the CCA (medial, anteromedial, lateral, anterolateral, posterior, or anterior); visual estimation of the IJV caliber relative to the CCA (less than 50%, between 50 and 100%, 101 and 150%, 150 and 200%, or greater than 200%); probability of reaching the IJV via the TT relative to the relative size and position of the IJV (success or failure).

Data analysis

Sample size was calculated based on an assumption that more than 12% of the Western population presents significant anatomical variations of the great vessels of the neck, as reported in the literature [17]. Thus, for a power of 80%, with a confidence index of 95%, the minimum sample was 63 individuals [18].

Relationships between studied variables were determined using the Fisher exact test and the Chi square test. Differences were considered significant when p < 0.05. Accuracies and their confidence intervals were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata software, version 9.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Of 105 patients ranging in age from 18 to 89 years, 82 were women.

Five were excluded because of poor image quality, leaving 100 patients included in the analysis.

On the right side, the IJV was most commonly found in the anterolateral position relative to the carotid artery (38% of the time) and was also found anterior (31%), anteromedial (21%), or lateral (10%) to that artery. In no case was it found in the medial position (Table 1).
Table 1

Location of IJV in relation to CCA

 

Right side of neck

Left side of neck

N

%

CI

N

%

CI

Anterior

31

31

(21.9–40.0)

36

36

(26.5–45.4)

Anterolateral

38

38

(28.4–47.5)

31

31

(21.9–40.0)

Lateral

10

10

(13.0–28.9)

1

1

(0.90–2.90)

Anteromedial

21

21

(4.1–15.80)

31

31

(21.9–40.0)

Medial

0

  

1

1

(0.90–2.90)

Posterior

0

  

0

  

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery, CI confidence interval

On the left side, it was most commonly found in the anterior position (36%) and was also found in the anterolateral (31%), anteromedial (31%), lateral (1%), and medial (1%) positions (Table 1). On both sides, the posterior position and its variables were not found.

The caliber of the IJV relative to the CCA greatly varied, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Size of IJV in relation to CCA

 

Right side

n = 100

Left side

n = 100

Total

n = 200

n

%

CI

n

%

CI

n

%

CI

Collapsed

20

20

(12.1–27.8)

18

18

(10.4–25.5)

38

19

(31.2–44.7)

< 50%

7

7

(1.9–12.0)

10

10

(4.1–15.8)

17

8.5

(11.7–22.2)

50–100%

28

28

(19.1–36.8)

27

27

(18.2–35.7)

55

27.5

(48.1–61.8)

101–150%

11

11

(4.8–17.1)

5

5

(0.7–9.2)

16

8

(10.9–21.0)

151–200%

12

12

(5.6–18.3)

10

10

(4.1–15.8)

22

11

(16.2–27.7)

> 200%

22

22

(13.8–30.1)

30

30

(21.0–38.9)

52

26

(45.0–58.9)

Total

100

100

 

100

100

 

200

100

 

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery, CI confidence interval

The probability of reaching the IJV for puncture was related to its size and anatomical position relative to the CCA (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3

Probability of reaching IJV in relation to the relative size of IJV to CCA

 

Yes

No

n

%

n

%

Collapsed

15

12

23

30.67

< 50%

10

8

7

7

50–100%

29

23.2

26

26

101–150%

13

10.4

3

4

151–200%

16

12.8

6

6

> 200%

42

33.6

10

10

Total

125

100

75

100

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery

Chi square = 21.723, p = 0.001

Table 4

Probability of reaching IJV in relation to its location in relation to CCA

 

Yes

No

n

%

n

%

Anterior

42

62.69

25

37.31

Anterolateral

43

62.32

26

37.68

Anteromedial

35

67.31

17

32.69

Lateral

5

45.55

6

54.45

Medial

0

0

6

6

Total

125

100

75

100

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery

Fischer test p = 0.478

Several results were noted when the right and left sides of a given patient were compared. One was the number of times the IJV was in a position opposite to the anatomical (medial or anteromedial) position on one side yet in the anatomical (lateral or anterolateral) position on the opposing side. Of the 21 patients in which the vein was anteromedial to the artery on the right side, 19% of the time, it was in the anatomical position on the left side. Of the 32 patients in which the vein was anteromedial or medial on the left side, 28% of the time, it was in an anatomical position on the right side (Table 5).
Table 5

Relationship between anatomical position of IJV and CCA in the right side

Right/left

Anterior

Anterolateral

Anteromedial

Lateral

Medial

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Anterior

11

35.5

8

25.8

12

38.7

0

0

0

0

31

100

Anterolateral

16

42.1

15

39.5

6

15.8

1

2.6

0

0

38

100

Anteromedial

6

28.6

4

19.0

11

52.4

0

0

0

0

21

100

Lateral

3

30.0

4

40.0

2

20.0

0

0

1

10

10

100

Medial

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

36

 

31

 

31

 

1

 

1

 

100

100

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery

The size of the vein relative to the artery in the same patient was examined. Of 20 patients in which the IJV was collapsed on the right side, it was not collapsed on the left side 45% of the time. Similarly, of 18 patients in which it was collapsed on the left side, it was not collapsed on the right side 43% of the time (Table 6).
Table 6

Relationship between size of the IJV in relation to CCA in the right (row) and in the left side (column) of the neck

Right/left

Collapsed

< 50%

50–100%

101–150%

151–200%

> 200%

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Collapsed

11

55

3

15.0

6

30.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

20

100

< 50%

3

42.8

3

42.8

1

14.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

7

100

50–100%

4

14.3

3

10.7

9

32.1

3

10.7

2

7.1

7

25.0

28

100

101–150%

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

27.7

2

18.9

3

27.3

3

27.3

11

100

151–200%

0

0.0

0

0.0

5

41.6

0

0.0

3

25.0

4

33.3

12

100

> 200%

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

13.6

0

0.0

2

9.1

16

72.7

22

100

Total

18

 

10

 

27

 

5

 

10

 

30

 

100

 

IJV internal jugular vein, CCA common carotid artery

Discussion

These data show that medical students can be trained to recognize the anatomy of large vessels in the neck using US after rapid and focused training. Adequate images were obtained from 95% of the patients chosen for evaluation, reinforcing the simplicity and feasibility of the method.

Puncture of the IJV is a procedure often performed in hospitals, emergency departments, and during pre-hospital care for a wide range of indications. Although several studies have shown that USGTs are cost-effective, not only for reducing mechanical complications and infections, but primarily for increasing the success rate and reducing procedure time, it is not used routinely, especially in developing countries [14, 19], given the lack of equipment availability, lack of trained professionals, and other reasons [16].

As found by several others [20, 21, 22, 23], great anatomical variability is found between the IJV and the CCA. Variability is also seen between the left and right sides of the same individual (Fig. 4). The IJV is in an anatomical position 48% of the time on the right side and 32% of the time on the left side. Use of TTs assumes that the IJV is in an anatomical position on both sides, but this was observed in fewer than 50% of our patients, combining anterolateral and lateral positions.
Fig. 4

Right and left IJV of a same patient, anterior and medial to the ACC, respectively

Additionally, great variability was found in the caliber of the IJV in our sample, and this is also supported by the literature [17, 21]. In our sample, the IJV was completely collapsed on the right and left sides 20% and 18% of the time, respectively (Fig. 5). Puncturing a collapsed vein is nearly impossible, even if the needle is directed correctly. Another complicating factor is that, in our sample, the IJV was anterior to the CCA 68% of the time. Attempting puncture in this condition can have disastrous consequences because of the risk of reaching the CCA, given that vein collapse amplifies this risk.
Fig. 5

Right IJV completely collapsed, anterolateral to CCA

We emphasize that in our patients, examination was conducted in a supine position with 0° slope despite the recommendation to position the patient in a Trendelenburg, a suggestion that is not always feasible for a variety of reasons. In this study, contralateral rotation of the neck was used because this position is most frequently recommended in IJV puncture by TTs. However, it has been shown that neck rotation does not interfere with the rate of success and/or reduction of complications when using USGTs [24].

In this study, puncture of the IJV was simulated at the demarcated point, where a TT was theoretically performed (Fig. 1). The success rate using US was determined as well (Fig. 3). Our data show that puncture could reach the IJV 62.5% of the time. Therefore, in 37.5% of the patients (75 of 200 simulations), more than one puncture attempt would be performed, increasing the possibility of complications [25]. The IJV was collapsed in 15 of 125 simulations in which the needle was supposed to reach that vein. Because it is unlikely that puncture is successful with a collapsed vein, we can conclude that the success rate would be 55% for the first attempt, confirming results from studies comparing TTs to USGTs [14, 19].

As suggested by Dinh et al. [26], incorporating training in USGTs in the curriculum for undergraduate medical students is highly desirable and feasible, and this is confirmed by our data. Implementing this and other applications of POCUS in medical schools would ensure that new generations of physicians are naturally empowered, increasing the resoluteness and safety of patient care.

This study is limited by the simulated nature of our procedures; however, actual puncture is not possible for ethical reasons. Also, students performed these procedures after training and without direct supervision, but our objective was to precisely verify the feasibility and simplicity of ultrasonographic visualization of the vessels of the neck after a short period of training. To avoid misinterpretation of the images, all were recorded and reviewed by physicians experienced in POCUS.

Conclusions

These data suggest that training medical students to recognize large neck vessels is a simple, quick, and feasible task and that can be integrated into the undergraduate medical curriculum.

Notes

Author’s contributions

Conceived the idea of the study: JMP Jr and ALSV; Designed the study: JMP Jr; Trained the medical students JMP Jr; Evaluated the patients: BCL; MMRS; MDC; PAM; RSV and LJP; Analysed the exams and simulations: JMP Jr and ALSV; Analysed the data: JMP Jr and ALSV; Wrote the manuscript: JMP Jr; ALSV and LJP; Translated the manuscript to English: JMP Jr; Formatted the manuscript to Critical Ultrasound: JMP Jr; Revised the manuscript: JMP Jr; ALSV; RSV; MMRS; BCL and PAM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Roldan CJ, Paniagua L (2015) Central venous catheter intravascular malpositioning: causes, prevention, diagnosis, and correction. West J Emerg Med 16:658–664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simon PO Jr, Saad WE (2012) Ultrasound-guided vascular access. Ultrasound Clin 7:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maecken T, Grau T (2007) Ultrasound imaging in vascular access. Crit Care Med 35(5 Suppl):S178–S185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parienti JJ et al (2015) Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. N Engl J Med 373:1220–1229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    English I, Frew RM, Pigott JF, Zaki M (1969) Percutaneous catheterisation of the internal jugular vein. Anaesthesia 24(4):521–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mostert JW, Kenny GM (1970) Safe placement of central venous catheter into internal jugular veins. Arch Surg 101:431–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brinkman AJ, Costley DO (1973) Internal jugular venipuncture. JAMA 223(2):182–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore CL (2014) Ultrasound first, second, and last for vascular access. J Ultrasound Med 33:1135–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M et al (2012) International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 38:1105–1117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore CL, Copel JA (2011) Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 364:749–757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Solomon SD, Saldana F (2014) Point-of-care ultrasound in medical education-stop listening and look. N Engl J Med 370:1083–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sekiguchi H (2016) Tools of the trade: point-of-care ultrasonography as a stethoscope. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 37:68–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E et al (2006) Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care 10:R162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moureau N et al (2013) Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth 110:347–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen BV, Prat G, Vincent JL et al (2013) Determination of the learning curve for ultrasound-guided jugular central venous catheter placement. Intensive Care Med 40:66–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prasad SR et al (2014) Ultrasonographic study of anatomical characteristics of internal jugular vein in relation to common carotid artery. J Dr NTR Univ Health Sci 3:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santos, Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira. Cálculo amostral on-line. Retrieved: 4 October 2018. http://publicacoesdeturismo.com.br/calculoamostral/
  19. 19.
    Rando K, Castelli J, Pratt JP, Scavino M, Rey G (2014) Ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein catheterization: a randomized controlled trial. Heart Lung Vessels 6(1):13–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lim CL, Keshava SN, Lea M (2006) Anatomical variations of the internal jugular veins and their relationship to the carotid arteries: a CT evaluation. Australas Radiol 50:314–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Umaña M (2017) Variations in the anatomical relationship between the common carotid artery and the internal jugular vein: an ultrasonographic study. Colomb Med 46:54–57Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Souza Neto EP, Grousson S, Duflo F, Tahon F, Mottolese C, Dailler F (2014) Ultrasonographic anatomic variations of the major veins in paediatric patients. Br J Anaesth 112:879–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maecken T, Marcon C, Bomas S, Zenz M, Grau T (2011) Relationship of the internal jugular vein to the common carotid artery: implications for ultrasound-guided vascular access. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28:351–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lamperti M et al (2012) Is a neutral head position safer than 45-degree neck rotation during ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein cannulation? Results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Anesth Analg 114:777–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Calvache JA, Rodríguez MV, Trochez A, Klimek M, Stolker RJ, Lesaffre E (2015) Incidence of mechanical complications of central venous catheterization using landmark technique. J Intensive Care Med 31:397–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dinh VA et al (2016) Medical student core clinical ultrasound milestones. J Ultrasound Med 35:421–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Muniz PazeliJr.
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ana Luisa Silveira Vieira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosimary Souza Vicentino
    • 1
  • Luisa Jabour Pazeli
    • 3
  • Bernardo Costa Lemos
    • 1
  • Marinna Marques Rodrigues Saliba
    • 1
  • Pedro Andrade Mello
    • 1
  • Maurício Dutra Costa
    • 1
  1. 1.FAME - Barbacena’s School of MedicinaBarbacenaBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil
  3. 3.SUPREMA - School of Medical Sciences and Health of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil

Personalised recommendations