Submitted: 24 Apr 2018
Revised: 13 Oct 2018
Accepted: 16 Nov 2018
First published online: 11 Dec 2018
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - FireFox Plugin)

J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2018;10(4):221-226.
doi: 10.15171/jcvtr.2018.38
PMID: 30680081
PMCID: PMC6335980
  Abstract View: 290
  PDF Download: 212

Original Article

Comparing the conventional 15 cm and the C-length approaches for central venous catheter placement

Hashem Jarineshin 1, Maryam Sharifi 1, Saeid Kashani 1 *

1 Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences. Bandar Abbas, Iran


Introduction: The present guidelines recommend placing the catheter tip in the superior vena cava (SVC) above the pericardial cephalic reflection. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of two different approaches in locating the tip of the Central venous catheter (CVC) at the suggested vascular zone.
Methods: This was an interventional study on two hundred patients undergoing Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) operation who required a central venous cannulation. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In the first group catheter placement was applied through using the conventional 15 cm method. In the second group a C-length method was applied for measuring the depth of catheter tip placement from the preoperative chest radiographs. For statistical analysis Chi-square test and T-test were used.
Results: In the first group (15 cm) 100% of the patients had their catheters placed below the C-line (Carina line) and the average distance between the catheter tip and the C-line was +4.22±2.10 cm. In the second (C-Length) group 52% of the catheters were below C-line with an average distance of +0.77±0.5 cm. There was a meaningful difference between the two groups in respect to the catheter location depth and zone of placement (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The C-Length approach in comparison to the conventional 15 cm approach resulted in a considerable higher number of catheters above the recommended C-line, thus it can provide a more reliable and safe mode for CVC placement in the SVC.
First name
Last name
Email address
Security code

Article Viewed: 290

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Downloaded: 212

Your browser does not support the canvas element.