A comparison of arterial lines and insertion techniques in critically ill patients

Abstract

We compared three arterial line insertion techniques and two types of arterial catheters in 69 critically ill patients. Use of the direct-puncture technique (method A) was associated with a significantly higher failure rate (23%) than use of a catheter with a separate guide wire (method B, 'classical' Seldinger technique, p < 0.001) or a catheter with an integral guide wire (method C, 'modified' Seldinger technique, p < 0.02). Operators randomly allocated to using method A took significantly longer to perform the procedure than those using method C (p < 0.01), used significantly more catheters (p < 0.0001) and made significantly more punctures in achieving a successful insertion than those using either methods B (p < 0.001) or C (p < 0.001). Both catheter types B and C (polyurethane) were significantly less likely to block, thus requiring less likely to block, thus requiring re-insertion, than catheter type A (Teflon) (p < 0.02, p < 0.01 respectively). We recommend the use of a 'classical' Seldinger technique (method B) for arterial line insertion in critically ill patients and the use of a polyurethane catheter, in preference to Teflon, to maximise catheter life after insertion.