From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Femoral vs. Subclavian Venous Catheterization

Femoral or subclavian veins often are catheterized to gain central venous access. These researchers sought to determine whether there are important differences in complication rates at these 2 sites.

In a trial conducted in 8 intensive care units in France, 289 patients who required central venous catheters in nonemergency situations were randomized to receive either femoral or subclavian venous catheters. Four pneumothoraces occurred in the subclavian group, and 2 hematomas that required transfusion or surgery occurred in the femoral group; otherwise, mechanical complications did not differ between the 2 groups. However, catheter-related infectious complications were significantly more common in the femoral group than in the subclavian group (20 percent vs. 5 percent), and clinical sepsis was slightly more common in the femoral group (4.4 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.07). Duplex Doppler ultrasonography was performed in most patients, and catheter-related thromboses were detected significantly more frequently in patients with femoral catheters (22 percent vs. 2 percent). Complete thrombosis of the vein occurred in 7 femoral patients and in no subclavian patients.

Comment: These findings suggest that, as long as experienced physicians are available and the pneumothorax rate is low, subclavian vein catheterization is preferable to femoral vein catheterization because of lower rates of infection and thrombosis. However, in occasional cases, the femoral route might be preferable for anatomic or medical reasons.

— AS Brett

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine August 21, 2001

Citation(s):

Merrer J et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001 Aug 8 286 700-707.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2001. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.