Practice Guidelines for Central Venous Access: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access

For these Guidelines, central venous access is defined as placement of a catheter such that the catheter is inserted into a venous great vessel. The venous great vessels include the superior vena cava, inferior vena cava, brachiocephalic veins, internal jugular veins, subclavian veins, iliac veins, and common femoral veins.*Excluded are catheters that terminate in a systemic artery.

The purposes of these Guidelines are to (1) provide guidance regarding placement and management of central venous catheters, (2) reduce infectious, mechanical, thrombotic, and other adverse outcomes associated with central venous catheterization, and (3) improve management of arterial trauma or injury arising from central venous catheterization.

These Guidelines apply to patients undergoing elective central venous access procedures performed by anesthesiologists or health care professionals under the direction/supervision of anesthesiologists. The Guidelines do not address (1) clinical indications for placement of central venous catheters, (2) emergency placement of central venous catheters, (3) patients with peripherally inserted central catheters, (4) placement and residence of a pulmonary artery catheter, (5) insertion of tunneled central lines (e.g. , permacaths, portacaths, Hickman^®, Quinton^®, (6) methods of detection or treatment of infectious complications associated with central venous catheterization, or (7) diagnosis and management of central venous catheter-associated trauma or injury (e.g. , pneumothorax or air embolism), with the exception of carotid arterial injury.

These Guidelines are intended for use by anesthesiologists and individuals who are under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. They also may serve as a resource for other physicians (e.g. , surgeons, radiologists), nurses, or health care providers who manage patients with central venous catheters.

The ASA appointed a Task Force of 12 members, including anesthesiologists in both private and academic practice from various geographic areas of the United States and two consulting methodologists from the ASA Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters.

The Task Force developed the Guidelines by means of a seven-step process. First, they reached consensus on the criteria for evidence. Second, original published research studies from peer-reviewed journals relevant to central venous access were reviewed and evaluated. Third, expert consultants were asked to (1) participate in opinion surveys on the effectiveness of various central venous access recommendations and (2) review and comment on a draft of the Guidelines. Fourth, opinions about the Guideline recommendations were solicited from a sample of active members of the ASA. Opinions on selected topics related to pediatric patients were solicited from a sample of active members of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia (SPA). Fifth, the Task Force held open forums at three major national meetings†to solicit input on its draft recommendations. Sixth, the consultants were surveyed to assess their opinions on the feasibility of implementing the Guidelines. Seventh, all available information was used to build consensus within the Task Force to finalize the Guidelines. A summary of recommendations may be found in appendix 1.

Preparation of these Guidelines followed a rigorous methodologic process. Evidence was obtained from two principal sources: scientific evidence and opinion-based evidence.

Study findings from published scientific literature were aggregated and are reported in summary form by evidence category, as described in the following paragraphs. All literature (e.g. , randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case reports) relevant to each topic was considered when evaluating the findings. However, for reporting purposes in this document, only the highest level of evidence (i.e. , level 1, 2, or 3 within category A, B, or C, as identified in the following paragraphs) is included in the summary.

Randomized controlled trials report statistically significant (P < 0.01) differences between clinical interventions for a specified clinical outcome.

• Level 1: The literature contains multiple randomized controlled trials, and aggregated findings are supported by meta-analysis.‡

• Level 2: The literature contains multiple randomized controlled trials, but the number of studies is insufficient to conduct a viable meta-analysis for the purpose of these Guidelines.

• Level 3: The literature contains a single randomized controlled trial.

Information from observational studies permits inference of beneficial or harmful relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes.

• Level 1: The literature contains observational comparisons (e.g. , cohort, case-control research designs) of clinical interventions or conditions and indicates statistically significant differences between clinical interventions for a specified clinical outcome.

• Level 2: The literature contains noncomparative observational studies with associative (e.g. , relative risk, correlation) or descriptive statistics.

• Level 3: The literature contains case reports.

The literature cannot determine whether there are beneficial or harmful relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes.

• Level 1: Meta-analysis did not find significant differences (P > 0.01) among groups or conditions.

• Level 2: The number of studies is insufficient to conduct meta-analysis, and (1) randomized controlled trials have not found significant differences among groups or conditions or (2) randomized controlled trials report inconsistent findings.

• Level 3: Observational studies report inconsistent findings or do not permit inference of beneficial or harmful relationships.

The lack of scientific evidence in the literature is described by the following terms:

• Inadequate: The available literature cannot be used to assess relationships among clinical interventions and clinical outcomes. The literature either does not meet the criteria for content as defined in the “Focus” of the Guidelines or does not permit a clear interpretation of findings due to methodologic concerns (e.g. , confounding in study design or implementation).

• Silent: No identified studies address the specified relationships among interventions and outcomes.

All opinion-based evidence relevant to each topic (e.g. , survey data, open-forum testimony, Internet-based comments, letters, editorials) is considered in the development of these Guidelines. However, only the findings obtained from formal surveys are reported.

Opinion surveys were developed by the Task Force to address each clinical intervention identified in the document. Identical surveys were distributed to expert consultants and ASA members, and a survey addressing selected pediatric issues was distributed to SPA members.

Survey responses from Task Force-appointed expert consultants are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of consultant survey responses reported in appendix 5.

Survey responses from active ASA and SPA members are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of ASA and SPA member survey responses reported in appendix 5.

Survey responses are recorded using a 5-point scale and summarized based on median values.§

• Strongly Agree. Median score of 5 (at least 50% of the responses are 5).

• Agree. Median score of 4 (at least 50% of the responses are 4 or 4 and 5).

• Equivocal. Median score of 3 (at least 50% of the responses are 3, or no other response category or combination of similar categories contain at least 50% of the responses).

• Disagree. Median score of 2 (at least 50% of responses are 2 or 1 and 2).

• Strongly Disagree. Median score of 1 (at least 50% of responses are 1).

Open-forum testimony, Internet-based comments, letters, and editorials are all informally evaluated and discussed during the development of Guideline recommendations. When warranted, the Task Force may add educational information or cautionary notes based on this information.

Resource preparation includes (1) assessing the physical environment where central venous catheterization is planned to determine the feasibility of using aseptic techniques, (2) availability of a standardized equipment set, (3) use of an assistant for central venous catheterization, and (4) use of a checklist or protocol for central venous catheter placement and maintenance.

The literature is insufficient to specifically evaluate the effect of the physical environment for aseptic catheter insertion, availability of a standardized equipment set, or the use of an assistant on outcomes associated with central venous catheterization (Category D evidence ). An observational study reports that the implementation of a trauma intensive care unit multidisciplinary checklist is associated with reduced catheter-related infection rates (Category B2 evidence ).1Observational studies report reduced catheter-related bloodstream infection rates when intensive care unit-wide bundled protocols are implemented (Category B2 evidence ).2,–,7These studies do not permit the assessment of the effect of any single component of a checklist or bundled protocol on outcome. The Task Force notes that the use of checklists in other specialties or professions has been effective in reducing the error rate for a complex series of activities.8,9 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that central venous catheterization should be performed in a location that permits the use of aseptic techniques. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that a standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access. The consultants and ASA members agree that a trained assistant should be used during the placement of a central venous catheter. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that a checklist or protocol should be used for the placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.

Central venous catheterization should be performed in an environment that permits use of aseptic techniques. A standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access.‖A checklist or protocol should be used for placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.#An assistant should be used during placement of a central venous catheter.**

Interventions intended to prevent infectious complications associated with central venous access include, but are not limited to (1) intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis, (2) aseptic techniques (i.e. , practitioner aseptic preparation and patient skin preparation), (3) selection of coated or impregnated catheters, (4) selection of catheter insertion site, (5) catheter fixation method, (6) insertion site dressings, (7) catheter maintenance procedures, and (8) aseptic techniques using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration.

Randomized controlled trials indicate that catheter-related infections and sepsis are reduced when prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are administered to high-risk immunosuppressed cancer patients or neonates (Category A2 evidence ).10,11The literature is insufficient to evaluate outcomes associated with the routine use of intravenous antibiotics (Category D evidence ).

The consultants and ASA members agree that intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis may be administered on a case-by-case basis for immunocompromised patients or high-risk neonates. The consultants and ASA members agree that intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.

For immunocompromised patients and high-risk neonates, administer intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.

Aseptic preparation of practitioner, staff, and patients: A randomized controlled trial comparing maximal barrier precautions (i.e. , mask, cap, gloves, gown, large full-body drape) with a control group (i.e. , gloves and small drape) reported equivocal findings for reduced colonization (P = 0.03) and catheter-related septicemia (P = 0.06) (Category C2 evidence ).12The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of specific aseptic activities (e.g. , hand washing) or barrier precautions (e.g. , sterile full-body drapes, sterile gown, gloves, mask, cap) (Category D evidence ). Observational studies report hand washing, sterile full-body drapes, sterile gloves, caps, and masks as elements of care “bundles” that result in reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections (Category B2 evidence ).2,–,7However, the degree to which each particular element contributed to improved outcomes could not be determined.

Most consultants and ASA members indicated that the following aseptic techniques should be used in preparation for the placement of central venous catheters: hand washing (100% and 96%); sterile full-body drapes (87.3% and 73.8%); sterile gowns (100% and 87.8%), gloves (100% and 100%), caps (100% and 94.7%), and masks covering both the mouth and nose (100% and 98.1%).

Chlorhexidine solutions: A randomized controlled trial comparing chlorhexidine (2% aqueous solution without alcohol) with 10% povidone iodine (without alcohol) for skin preparation reports equivocal findings regarding catheter colonization (P = 0.013) and catheter-related bacteremia (P = 0.28) (Category C2 evidence ).13The literature is insufficient to evaluate chlorhexidine with alcohol compared with povidone-iodine with alcohol (Category D evidence ). The literature is insufficient to evaluate the safety of antiseptic solutions containing chlorhexidine in neonates, infants and children (Category D evidence ).

Solutions containing alcohol: Comparative studies are insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine with alcohol in comparison with chlorhexidine without alcohol for skin preparation during central venous catheterization (Category D evidence ). A randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine with alcohol indicates that catheter tip colonization is reduced when compared with povidone-iodine alone (Category A3 evidence ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related infection (P = 0.04) and clinical signs of infection (P = 0.09) (Category C2 evidence ).14 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that chlorhexidine with alcohol should be used for skin preparation. SPA members are equivocal regarding whether chlorhexidine-containing solutions should be used for skin preparation in neonates (younger than 44 gestational weeks); they agree with the use of chlorhexidine in infants (younger than 2 yr) and strongly agree with its use in children (2–16 yr).

In preparation for the placement of central venous catheters, use aseptic techniques (e.g. , hand washing) and maximal barrier precautions (e.g. , sterile gowns, sterile gloves, caps, masks covering both mouth and nose, and full-body patient drapes). A chlorhexidine-containing solution should be used for skin preparation in adults, infants, and children; for neonates, the use of a chlorhexidine-containing solution for skin preparation should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol. If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used. Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials15,–,19comparing antibiotic-coated with uncoated catheters indicates that antibiotic-coated catheters reduce catheter colonization (Category A1 evidence ). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials20,–,24comparing silver-impregnated catheters with uncoated catheters report equivocal findings for catheter-related bloodstream infection (Category C1 evidence ); randomized controlled trials were equivocal regarding catheter colonization (P = 0.16–0.82) (Category C2 evidence ).20,–,22,24Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials25,–,36demonstrate that catheters coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine reduce catheter colonization (Category A1 evidence ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related bloodstream infection (i.e. , catheter colonization and corresponding positive blood culture) (Category C1 evidence ).25,–,27,29,–,35,37,38Cases of anaphylactic shock are reported after placement of a catheter coated with chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine (Category B3 evidence ).39,–,41 

Consultants and ASA members agree that catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine may be used in selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use.

Catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine should be used for selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use. The Task Force notes that catheters containing antimicrobial agents are not a substitute for additional infection precautions.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the subclavian and femoral insertion sites report higher levels of catheter colonization with the femoral site (Category A3 evidence ); equivocal findings are reported for catheter-related sepsis (P = 0.07) (Category C2 evidence ).42A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the femoral site reports no difference in catheter colonization (P = 0.79) or catheter related bloodstream infections (P = 0.42) (Category C2 evidence ).43Prospective nonrandomized comparative studies are equivocal (i.e. , inconsistent) regarding catheter-related colonization44,–,46and catheter related bloodstream infection46,–,48when the internal jugular site is compared with the subclavian site (Category C3 evidence ). A nonrandomized comparative study of burn patients reports that catheter colonization and bacteremia occur more frequently the closer the catheter insertion site is to the burn wound (Category B1 evidence ).49 

Most consultants indicate that the subclavian insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of infection. Most ASA members indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of infection. The consultants and ASA members agree that femoral catheterization should be avoided when possible to minimize the risk of infection. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that an insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated.

Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need. An insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated (e.g. , burned or infected skin, inguinal area, adjacent to tracheostomy or open surgical wound). In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of infection.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether catheter fixation with sutures, staples or tape is associated with a higher risk for catheter-related infections (Category D evidence ).

Most consultants and ASA members indicate that use of sutures is the preferred catheter fixation technique to minimize catheter-related infection.

The use of sutures, staples, or tape for catheter fixation should be determined on a local or institutional basis.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of transparent bio-occlusive dressings to reduce the risk of infection (Category D evidence ). Randomized controlled trials are equivocal (P = 0.04–0.96) regarding catheter tip colonization50,51and inconsistent (P = 0.004–0.96) regarding catheter-related bloodstream infection50,52when chlorhexidine sponge dressings are compared with standard polyurethane dressings (Category C2 evidence ). A randomized controlled trial is also equivocal regarding catheter tip colonization for silver-impregnated transparent dressings compared with standard dressings (P > 0.05) (Category C2 evidence ).53A randomized controlled trial reports a greater frequency of severe localized contact dermatitis when neonates receive chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings compared with povidone-iodine impregnated dressings (Category A3 evidence ).54 

The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection. The consultants and ASA members agree that dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used to reduce the risk of catheter-related infection. SPA members are equivocal regarding whether dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used for skin preparation in neonates (younger than 44 gestational weeks); they agree that the use of dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in infants (younger than 2 yr) and children (2–16 yr).

Transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection. Unless contraindicated, dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in adults, infants, and children. For neonates, the use of transparent or sponge dressings containing chlorhexidine should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.

Catheter maintenance consists of (1) determining the optimal duration of catheterization, (2) conducting catheter site inspections, (3) periodically changing catheters, and (4) changing catheters using a guidewire instead of selecting a new insertion site.

Nonrandomized comparative studies indicate that longer catheterizations are associated with higher rates of catheter colonization, infection, and sepsis (Category B2 evidence ).45,55The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether specified time intervals between catheter site inspections are associated with a higher risk for catheter-related infection (Category D evidence ). Randomized controlled trials report equivocal findings (P = 0.54–0.63) regarding differences in catheter tip colonizations when catheters are changed at 3- versus  7-day intervals (Category C2 evidence ).56,57Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials58,–,62report equivocal findings for catheter tip colonization when guidewires are used to change catheters compared with the use of new insertion sites (Category C1 evidence ).

The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that the duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that (1) the clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily; (2) catheters should be promptly removed when deemed no longer clinically necessary; (3) the catheter site should be inspected daily for signs of infection and changed when infection is suspected; and (4) when catheter infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.

The duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need. The clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily. Catheters should be removed promptly when no longer deemed clinically necessary. The catheter insertion site should be inspected daily for signs of infection, and the catheter should be changed or removed when catheter insertion site infection is suspected. When a catheter related infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.

Aseptic techniques using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration consist of (1) wiping the port with an appropriate antiseptic, (2) capping stopcocks or access ports, and (3) use of needleless catheter connectors or access ports.

The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether wiping ports or capping stopcocks when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration is associated with a reduced risk for catheter-related infections (Category D evidence ). Randomized controlled trials comparing needleless connectors with standard caps indicate decreased levels of microbial contamination of stopcock entry ports with needleless connectors (Category A2 evidence );63,64no differences in catheter-related bloodstream infection are reported (P = 0.3–0.9) (Category C2 evidence ).65,66 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access. The consultants and ASA members agree that needleless ports may be used on a case-by-case basis. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that central venous catheter stopcocks should be capped when not in use.

Catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration. Central venous catheter stopcocks or access ports should be capped when not in use. Needleless catheter access ports may be used on a case-by-case basis.

Interventions intended to prevent mechanical trauma or injury associated with central venous access include, but are not limited to (1) selection of catheter insertion site, (2) positioning the patient for needle insertion and catheter placement, (3) needle insertion and catheter placement, and (4) monitoring for needle, guidewire, and catheter placement.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the subclavian and femoral insertion sites reports that the femoral site had a higher frequency of thrombotic complications in adult patients (Category A3 evidence ).42A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the femoral site reports equivocal findings for arterial puncture (P = 0.35), deep venous thrombosis (P = 0.62) or hematoma formation (P = 0.47) (Category C2 evidence ).43A randomized controlled trial comparing the internal jugular insertion site with the subclavian site reports equivocal findings for successful venipuncture (P = 0.03) (Category C2 evidence ).67Nonrandomized comparative studies report equivocal findings for arterial puncture, pneumothorax, hematoma, hemothorax, or arrhythmia when the internal jugular insertion site is compared with the subclavian insertion site (Category C3 evidence ).68,–,70 

Most consultants and ASA members indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter cannulation-related risk of injury or trauma. Most consultants and ASA members also indicate that the internal jugular insertion site is preferred to minimize catheter-related risk of thromboembolic injury or trauma.

Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need and practitioner judgment, experience, and skill. In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications.

Nonrandomized studies comparing the Trendelenburg (i.e. , head down) position with the normal supine position indicates that the right internal jugular vein increases in diameter and cross-sectional area to a greater extent when adult patients are placed in the Trendelenburg position (Category B2 evidence ).71,–,76One nonrandomized study comparing the Trendelenburg position with the normal supine position in pediatric patients reports an increase in right internal jugular vein diameter only for patients older than 6 yr (Category B2 evidence ).77 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that, when clinically appropriate and feasible, central vascular access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.

When clinically appropriate and feasible, central venous access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.

Needle insertion, wire placement, and catheter placement includes (1) selection of catheter size and type, (2) use of a wire-through-thin-wall needle technique (i.e. , Seldinger technique) versus  a catheter-over-the-needle-then-wire-through-the-catheter technique (i.e. , modified Seldinger technique), (3) limiting the number of insertion attempts, and (4) introducing two catheters in the same central vein.

Case reports describe severe injury (e.g. , hemorrhage, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, arterial dissection, neurologic injury including stroke, and severe or lethal airway obstruction) when there is unintentional arterial cannulation with large bore catheters (Category B3 evidence ).78,–,88The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether the risk of injury or trauma is associated with the use of a thin-wall needle technique versus  a catheter-over-the needle technique (Category D evidence ). The literature is insufficient to evaluate whether the risk of injury or trauma is related to the number of insertion attempts (Category D evidence ). One nonrandomized comparative study reports a higher frequency of dysrhythmia when two central venous catheters are placed in the same vein (right internal jugular) compared with placement of one catheter in the vein (Category B2 evidence ); no differences in carotid artery puncture (P = 0.65) or hematoma (P = 0.48) were noted (Category C3 evidence ).89 

The consultants agree and the ASA members strongly agree that the selection of catheter type (i.e. , gauge, length, number of lumens) and composition (e.g. , polyurethane, Teflon) should be based on the clinical situation, and the skill and experience of the operator. The consultants and ASA members agree that the selection of a modified Seldinger technique versus  a Seldinger technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill and experience of the operator. The consultants and ASA members agree that the number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that the decision to place two central catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Selection of catheter size (i.e. , outside diameter) and type should be based on the clinical situation and skill/experience of the operator. Selection of the smallest size catheter appropriate for the clinical situation should be considered. Selection of a thin-wall needle (i.e. , Seldinger) technique versus  a catheter-over-the-needle (i.e. , modified Seldinger) technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill/experience of the operator. The decision to use a thin-wall needle technique or a catheter-over-the-needle technique should be based at least in part on the method used to confirm that the wire resides in the vein before a dilator or large-bore catheter is threaded (fig. 1). The Task Force notes that the catheter-over-the-needle technique may provide more stable venous access if manometry is used for venous confirmation. The number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment. The decision to place two catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Guidance for needle, wire, and catheter placement includes ultrasound imaging for the purpose of prepuncture vessel localization (i.e. , static ultrasound) and ultrasound for vessel localization and guiding the needle to its intended venous location (i.e. , real time or dynamic ultrasound). Verification of needle, wire, or catheter location includes any one or more of the following methods: (1) ultrasound, (2) manometry, (3) pressure waveform analysis, (4) venous blood gas, (5) fluoroscopy, (6) continuous electrocardiography, (7) transesophageal echocardiography, and (8) chest radiography.

Randomized controlled trials comparing static ultrasound with the anatomic landmark approach for locating the internal jugular vein report a higher first insertion attempt success rate for static ultrasound (Category A3 evidence );90findings are equivocal regarding overall successful cannulation rates (P = 0.025–0.57) (Category C2 evidence ).90,–,92In addition, the literature is equivocal regarding subclavian vein access (P = 0.84) (Category C2 evidence ) 93and insufficient for femoral vein access (Category D evidence ).

The consultants and ASA members agree that static ultrasound imaging should be used in elective situations for prepuncture identification of anatomy and vessel localization when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation; they are equivocal regarding whether static ultrasound imaging should be used when the subclavian vein is selected. The consultants agree and the ASA members are equivocal regarding the use of static ultrasound imaging when the femoral vein is selected.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials94,–,104indicates that, compared with the anatomic landmark approach, real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture of the internal jugular vein has a higher first insertion attempt success rate, reduced access time, higher overall successful cannulation rate, and decreased rates of arterial puncture (Category A1 evidence ). Randomized controlled trials report fewer number of insertion attempts with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture of the internal jugular vein (Category A2 evidence ).97,99,103,104 

For the subclavian vein, randomized controlled trials report fewer insertion attempts with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture (Category A2 evidence ),105,106and one randomized clinical trial indicates a higher success rate and reduced access time, with fewer arterial punctures and hematomas compared with the anatomic landmark approach (Category A3 evidence ).106 

For the femoral vein, a randomized controlled trial reports a higher first-attempt success rate and fewer needle passes with real-time ultrasound guided venipuncture compared with the anatomic landmark approach in pediatric patients (Category A3 evidence ).107 

The consultants agree and the ASA members are equivocal that, when available, real time ultrasound should be used for guidance during venous access when either the internal jugular or femoral veins are selected for cannulation. The consultants and ASA members are equivocal regarding the use of real time ultrasound when the subclavian vein is selected.

A retrospective observational study reports that manometry can detect arterial punctures not identified by blood flow and color (Category B2 evidence ).108The literature is insufficient to address ultrasound, pressure-waveform analysis, blood gas analysis, blood color, or the absence of pulsatile flow as effective methods of confirming catheter or thin-wall needle venous access (Category D evidence ).

An observational study indicates that ultrasound can be used to confirm venous placement of the wire before dilation or final catheterization (Category B2 evidence ).109Case reports indicate that transesophageal echocardiography was used to identify guidewire position (Category B3 evidence ).110,–,112The literature is insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of continuous electrocardiography in confirming venous residence of the wire (Category D evidence ), although narrow complex electrocardiographic ectopy is recognized by the Task Force as an indicator of venous location of the wire. The literature is insufficient to address fluoroscopy as an effective method to confirm venous residence of the wire (Category D evidence ); the Task Force believes that fluoroscopy may be used.

Studies with observational findings indicate that fluoroscopy113,115and chest radiography115,–,125are useful in identifying the position of the catheter tip (Category B2 evidence ). Randomized controlled trials indicate that continuous electrocardiography is effective in identifying proper catheter tip placement compared with not using electrocardiography (Category A2 evidence ).115,126,127 

The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that before insertion of a dilator or large- bore catheter over a wire, venous access should be confirmed for the catheter or thin-wall needle that accesses the vein. The Task Force believes that blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon to confirm venous access. The consultants agree and ASA members are equivocal that venous access should be confirmed for the wire that subsequently resides in the vein after traveling through a catheter or thin-wall needle before insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter over a wire. The consultants and ASA members agree that, when feasible, both the location of the catheter or thin-wall needle and wire should be confirmed.

The consultants and ASA members agree that a chest radiograph should be performed to confirm the location of the catheter tip as soon after catheterization as clinically appropriate. They also agree that, for central venous catheters placed in the operating room, a confirmatory chest radiograph may be performed in the early postoperative period. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that, if a chest radiograph is deferred to the postoperative period, pressure waveform analysis, blood gas analysis, ultrasound, or fluoroscopy should be used to confirm venous positioning of the catheter before use.

The following steps are recommended for prevention of mechanical trauma during needle, wire, and catheter placement in elective situations:

• Use static ultrasound imaging before prepping and draping for prepuncture identification of anatomy to determine vessel localization and patency when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation. Static ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.

• Use real time ultrasound guidance for vessel localization and venipuncture when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation (see fig. 1). Real-time ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected. The Task Force recognizes that this approach may not be feasible in emergency circumstances or in the presence of other clinical constraints.

• After insertion of a catheter that went over the needle or a thin-wall needle, confirm venous access.††Methods for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein include, but are not limited to, ultrasound, manometry, pressure-waveform analysis, or venous blood gas measurement. Blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein.

• When using the thin-wall needle technique, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. When using the catheter-over-the-needle technique, confirmation that the wire resides in the vein may not be needed (1) when the catheter enters the vein easily and manometry or pressure waveform measurement provides unambiguous confirmation of venous location of the catheter; and (2) when the wire passes through the catheter and enters the vein without difficulty. If there is any uncertainty that the catheter or wire resides in the vein, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. Insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter may then proceed. Methods for confirming that the wire resides in the vein include, but are not limited to, ultrasound (identification of the wire in the vein) or transesophageal echocardiography (identification of the wire in the superior vena cava or right atrium), continuous electrocardiography (identification of narrow-complex ectopy), or fluoroscopy.

• After final catheterization and before use, confirm residence of the catheter in the venous system as soon as clinically appropriate. Methods for confirming that the catheter is still in the venous system after catheterization and before use include manometry or pressure waveform measurement.

• Confirm the final position of the catheter tip as soon as clinically appropriate. Methods for confirming the position of the catheter tip include chest radiography, fluoroscopy, or continuous electrocardiography. For central venous catheters placed in the operating room, perform the chest radiograph no later than the early postoperative period to confirm the position of the catheter tip.

Case reports of adult patients with arterial puncture by a large bore catheter/vessel dilator during attempted central venous catheterization indicate severe complications (e.g. , cerebral infarction, arteriovenous fistula, hemothorax) after immediate catheter removal; no such complications were reported for adult patients whose catheters were left in place before surgical consultation and repair (Category B3 evidence ).80,86 

The consultants and ASA members agree that, when unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a large-bore catheter occurs, the catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon or vascular surgeon should be consulted. When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a large-bore catheter occurs, the SPA members indicate that the catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, vascular surgeon, or interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted before deciding on whether to remove the catheter, either surgically or nonsurgically, as follows: 54.9% (for neonates), 43.8% (for infants), and 30.0% (for children). SPA members indicating that the catheter may be nonsurgically removed without consultation is as follows: 45.1% (for neonates), 56.2% (for infants), and 70.0% (for children). The Task Force agrees that the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding the relative risks and benefits of proceeding with elective surgery after an arterial vessel has sustained unintended injury by a dilator or large-bore catheter.

When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a dilator or large-bore catheter occurs, the dilator or catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, a vascular surgeon, or an interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted regarding surgical or nonsurgical catheter removal for adults. For neonates, infants, and children the decision to leave the catheter in place and obtain consultation or to remove the catheter nonsurgically should be based on practitioner judgment and experience. After the injury has been evaluated and a treatment plan has been executed, the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding relative risks and benefits of proceeding with the elective surgery versus  deferring surgery to allow for a period of patient observation.

• Central venous catheterization should be performed in an environment that permits use of aseptic techniques.

• A standardized equipment set should be available for central venous access.

• A checklist or protocol should be used for placement and maintenance of central venous catheters.

• An assistant should be used during placement of a central venous catheter.

• For immunocompromised patients and high-risk neonates, administer intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis.

  • Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis should not be administered routinely.

• In preparation for the placement of central venous catheters, use aseptic techniques (e.g. , hand washing) and maximal barrier precautions (e.g. , sterile gowns, sterile gloves, caps, masks covering both mouth and nose, and full-body patient drapes).

• A chlorhexidine-containing solution should be used for skin preparation in adults, infants, and children.

  • For neonates, the use of a chlorhexidine-containing solution for skin preparation should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.

  • If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used as alternatives.

  • Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.

• If there is a contraindication to chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine or alcohol may be used. Unless contraindicated, skin preparation solutions should contain alcohol.

• Catheters coated with antibiotics or a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine should be used for selected patients based on infectious risk, cost, and anticipated duration of catheter use.

  • Catheters containing antimicrobial agents are not a substitute for additional infection precautions.

• Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need.

  • An insertion site should be selected that is not contaminated or potentially contaminated (e.g. , burned or infected skin, inguinal area, adjacent to tracheostomy or open surgical wound).

  • In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of infection.

• The use of sutures, staples, or tape for catheter fixation should be determined on a local or institutional basis.

• Transparent bio-occlusive dressings should be used to protect the site of central venous catheter insertion from infection.

  • Unless contraindicated, dressings containing chlorhexidine may be used in adults, infants, and children.

  • For neonates, the use of transparent or sponge dressings containing chlorhexidine should be based on clinical judgment and institutional protocol.

• The duration of catheterization should be based on clinical need.

  • The clinical need for keeping the catheter in place should be assessed daily.

  • Catheters should be removed promptly when no longer deemed clinically necessary.

• The catheter insertion site should be inspected daily for signs of infection.

  • The catheter should be changed or removed when catheter insertion site infection is suspected.

• When a catheter-related infection is suspected, replacing the catheter using a new insertion site is preferable to changing the catheter over a guidewire.

• Catheter access ports should be wiped with an appropriate antiseptic before each access when using an existing central venous catheter for injection or aspiration.

• Central venous catheter stopcocks or access ports should be capped when not in use.

• Needleless catheter access ports may be used on a case-by-case basis.

• Catheter insertion site selection should be based on clinical need and practitioner judgment, experience, and skill.

  • In adults, selection of an upper body insertion site should be considered to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications.

• When clinically appropriate and feasible, central venous access in the neck or chest should be performed with the patient in the Trendelenburg position.

• Selection of catheter size (i.e. , outside diameter) and type should be based on the clinical situation and skill/experience of the operator.

  • Selection of the smallest size catheter appropriate for the clinical situation should be considered.

• Selection of a thin-wall needle (a wire-through-thin-wall-needle, or Seldinger) technique versus  a catheter-over-the-needle (a catheter-over-the-needle-then-wire-through-the-catheter, or Modified Seldinger) technique should be based on the clinical situation and the skill/experience of the operator.

  • The decision to use a thin-wall needle technique or a catheter-over-the-needle technique should be based at least in part on the method used to confirm that the wire resides in the vein before a dilator or large-bore catheter is threaded.

  • The catheter-over-the-needle technique may provide more stable venous access if manometry is used for venous confirmation.

• The number of insertion attempts should be based on clinical judgment.

• The decision to place two catheters in a single vein should be made on a case-by-case basis.

• Use static ultrasound imaging in elective situations before prepping and draping for prepuncture identification of anatomy to determine vessel localization and patency when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation.

  • Static ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.

• Use real-time ultrasound guidance for vessel localization and venipuncture when the internal jugular vein is selected for cannulation.

  • Real-time ultrasound may be used when the subclavian or femoral vein is selected.

  • Real-time ultrasound may not be feasible in emergency circumstances or in the presence of other clinical constraints.

• After insertion of a catheter that went over the needle or a thin-wall needle, confirm venous access.††

  • Methods for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein include, but are not limited to: ultrasound, manometry, pressure-waveform analysis, or venous blood gas measurement.

  • Blood color or absence of pulsatile flow should not be relied upon for confirming that the catheter or thin-wall needle resides in the vein.

• When using the thin-wall needle technique, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded.

• When using the catheter-over-the-needle technique, confirmation that the wire resides in the vein may not be needed (1) when the catheter enters the vein easily and manometry or pressure waveform measurement provides unambiguous confirmation of venous location of the catheter, and (2) when the wire passes through the catheter and enters the vein without difficulty.

  • If there is any uncertainty that the catheter or wire resides in the vein, confirm venous residence of the wire after the wire is threaded. Insertion of a dilator or large-bore catheter may then proceed.

  • Methods for confirming that the wire resides in the vein include, but are not limited to surface ultrasound (identification of the wire in the vein) or transesophageal echocardiography (identification of the wire in the superior vena cava or right atrium), continuous electrocardiography (identification of narrow-complex ectopy), or fluoroscopy.

• After final catheterization and before use, confirm residence of the catheter in the venous system as soon as clinically appropriate.

  • Methods for confirming that the catheter is still in the venous system after catheterization and before use include waveform manometry or pressure measurement.

• Confirm the final position of the catheter tip as soon as clinically appropriate.

  • Methods for confirming the position of the catheter tip include chest radiography, fluoroscopy, or continuous electrocardiography.

• For central venous catheters placed in the operating room, perform the chest radiograph no later than the early postoperative period to confirm the position of the catheter tip.

• When unintended cannulation of an arterial vessel with a dilator or large-bore catheter occurs, the dilator or catheter should be left in place and a general surgeon, a vascular surgeon, or an interventional radiologist should be immediately consulted regarding surgical or nonsurgical catheter removal for adults.

  • For neonates, infants, and children, the decision to leave the catheter in place and obtain consultation or to remove the catheter nonsurgically should be based on practitioner judgment and experience.

• After the injury has been evaluated and a treatment plan has been executed, the anesthesiologist and surgeon should confer regarding relative risks and benefits of proceeding with the elective surgery versus  deferring surgery for a period of patient observation.

For these Guidelines, a literature review was used in combination with opinions obtained from expert consultants and other sources (e.g. , ASA members, SPA members, open forums, Internet postings). Both the literature review and opinion data were based on evidence linkages, or statements regarding potential relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. The interventions listed below were examined to assess their effect on a variety of outcomes related to central venous catheterization.

Resource Preparation 

• Selection of a Sterile Environment

• Availability of a standardized equipment set

• Use of a checklist or protocol for placement and maintenance

• Use of an assistant for placement

Prevention of Infectious Complications 

• Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis

• Aseptic techniques

• Aseptic preparation

  • Hand washing, sterile full-body drapes, sterile gown, gloves, mask, cap

• Skin preparation

  • Chlorhexidine versus  povidone-iodine

• Aseptic preparation with versus  without alcohol

• Selection of catheter coatings or impregnation

  • Antibiotic-coated catheters versus  no coating

  • Silver-impregnated catheters versus  no coating

  • Chlorhexidine combined with silver sulfadiazine catheter coating versus  no coating

• Selection of catheter insertion site

  • Internal jugular

  • Subclavian

  • Femoral

  • Selecting a potentially uncontaminated insertion site

• Catheter fixation

  • Suture, staple, or tape

• Insertion site dressings

  • Clear plastic, chlorhexidine, gauze and tape, cyanoacrylate, antimicrobial dressings, antibiotic ointment

• Catheter maintenance

  • Long-term versus  short-term catheterization

  • Frequency of insertion site inspection for signs of infection

• Changing catheters

  • Specified time intervals

  • Specified time interval versus  no specified time interval (i.e. , as needed)

  • One specified time interval versus  another specified time interval

  • Changing a catheter over a wire versus  a new site

• Aseptic techniques using an existing central line for injection or aspiration

  • Wiping ports with alcohol

  • Capping stopcocks

  • Needleless connectors or access ports

Prevention of Mechanical Trauma or Injury 

• Selection of catheter insertion site

  • Internal jugular

  • Subclavian

  • Femoral

• Trendelenburg versus  supine position

• Needle insertion and catheter placement

• Selection of catheter type (e.g. , double lumen, triple lumen, Cordis)

  • Selection of a large-bore catheter

  • Placement of two catheters in the same vein

  • Use of a Seldinger technique versus  a modified Seldinger technique

  • Limiting number of insertion attempts

• Guidance of needle, wire and catheter placement

  • Static ultrasound versus  no ultrasound (i.e. , anatomic landmarks)

  • Real-time ultrasound guidance versus  no ultrasound

• Verification of placement

  • Manometry versus  direct pressure measurement (via  pressure transducer)

  • Continuous electrocardiogram

  • Fluoroscopy

  • Venous blood gas

  • Transesophageal echocardiography

  • Chest radiography

Management of Trauma or Injury Arising from Central Venous Catheterization 

• Not removing versus  removing central venous catheter on evidence of arterial puncture

For the literature review, potentially relevant clinical studies were identified via  electronic and manual searches of the literature. The electronic and manual searches covered a 44-yr period from 1968 through 2011. More than 2,000 citations were initially identified, yielding a total of 671 nonoverlapping articles that addressed topics related to the evidence linkages. After review of the articles, 383 studies did not provide direct evidence, and were subsequently eliminated. A total of 288 articles contained direct linkage-related evidence. A complete bibliography used to develop these Guidelines, organized by section, is available as Supplemental Digital Content 2, https://links.lww.com/ALN/A784.

Initially, each pertinent outcome reported in a study was classified as supporting an evidence linkage, refuting a linkage, or equivocal. The results were then summarized to obtain a directional assessment for each evidence linkage before conducting formal meta-analyses. Literature pertaining to five evidence linkages contained enough studies with well-defined experimental designs and statistical information sufficient for meta-analyses (table 1). These linkages were (1) antimicrobial catheters, (2) silver sulfadiazine catheter coatings, (3) chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine catheter coatings, (4) changing a catheter over a wire versus  a new site, and (5) ultrasound guidance for venipuncture.

General variance-based effect-size estimates or combined probability tests were obtained for continuous outcome measures, and Mantel-Haenszel odds-ratios were obtained for dichotomous outcome measures. Two combined probability tests were employed as follows: (1) the Fisher combined test, producing chi-square values based on logarithmic transformations of the reported P  values from the independent studies, and (2) the Stouffer combined test, providing weighted representation of the studies by weighting each of the standard normal deviates by the size of the sample. An odds-ratio procedure based on the Mantel-Haenszel method for combining study results using 2 × 2 tables was used with outcome frequency information. An acceptable significance level was set at P < 0.01 (one-tailed). Tests for heterogeneity of the independent studies were conducted to assure consistency among the study results. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects odds ratios were obtained when significant heterogeneity was found (P < 0.01). To control for potential publishing bias, a “fail-safe n ” value was calculated. No search for unpublished studies was conducted, and no reliability tests for locating research results were done. To be accepted as significant findings, Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios must agree with combined test results whenever both types of data are assessed. In the absence of Mantel-Haenszel odds-ratios, findings from both the Fisher and weighted Stouffer combined tests must agree with each other to be acceptable as significant.

Interobserver agreement among Task Force members and two methodologists was established by interrater reliability testing. Agreement levels using a kappa (κ) statistic for two-rater agreement pairs were as follows: (1) type of study design, κ = 0.70–1.00l; (2) type of analysis, κ = 0.60–0.84; (3) evidence linkage assignment, κ = 0.91–1.00; and (4) literature inclusion for database, κ = 0.65–1.00. Three-rater chance-corrected agreement values were (1) study design, Sav = 0.80, Var (Sav) = 0.006; (2) type of analysis, Sav = 0.70, Var (Sav) = 0.016; (3) linkage assignment, Sav = 0.94, Var (Sav) = 0.002; (4) literature database inclusion, Sav = 0.65, Var (Sav) = 0.034. These values represent moderate to high levels of agreement.

Consensus was obtained from multiple sources, including (1) survey opinion from consultants who were selected based on their knowledge or expertise in central venous access, (2) survey opinions solicited from active members of the ASA and SPA, (3) testimony from attendees of publicly-held open forums at two national anesthesia meetings, (4) Internet commentary, and (5) task force opinion and interpretation. The survey rate of return was 41.0% (n = 55 of 134) for the consultants (table 2), 530 surveys were received from active ASA members (table 3), and 251 surveys were received from active SPA members (table 4).

An additional survey was sent to the expert consultants asking them to indicate which, if any, of the evidence linkages would change their clinical practices if the Guidelines were instituted. The rate of return was 16% (n = 22 of 134). The percentage of responding consultants expecting no change associated with each linkage were as follows: (1) availability of a standardized equipment set = 91.8%, (2) use of a trained assistant = 83.7%, (3) use of a checklist or protocol for placement and maintenance = 75.5%, (4) use of bundles that include a checklist or protocol = 87.8%, (5) intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis = 93.9%, (6) aseptic preparation (e.g. , hand washing, caps, masks) = 98.0%, (8) skin preparation = 98.0%, (9) selection of catheters with antibiotic or antiseptic coatings/impregnation = 89.8%, (10) selection of catheter insertion site for prevention of infection = 100%, (11) catheter fixation methods = 89.8%, (12) insertion site dressings = 100%, (13) catheter maintenance = 100%, (14) aseptic techniques using an existing central line for injection or aspiration = 95.9%, (15) selection of catheter insertion site for prevention of mechanical trauma or injury = 100%, (16) Trendelenburg versus  supine patient positioning for neck or chest venous access = 100%, (17) needle insertion and catheter placement = 100%, (18) guidance of needle, wire, and catheter placement = 89.8%, (19) verification of needle puncture and placement = 98.0%, (20) management of trauma or injury = 100%.

Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that the Guidelines would have no effect on the amount of time spent on a typical case, and 43% indicated that there would be an increase of the amount of time spent on a typical case with the implementation of these Guidelines. Seventy-four percent indicated that new equipment, supplies, or training would not be needed to implement the Guidelines, and 78% indicated that implementation of the Guidelines would not require changes in practice that would affect costs.

Evidence for these Guidelines was formally collected from multiple sources, including randomized controlled trials, observational literature, surveys of expert consultants, and randomly selected samples of ASA and SPA members. This information is summarized in table 5, with a brief description of each corresponding recommendation.