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

Anaesthesia. 1994 Nov;49(11):968-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb04316.x.


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.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Catheterization, Peripheral / methods*
  • Catheters, Indwelling
  • Child
  • Critical Illness*
  • Humans
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Time Factors