Comparison of Classical and Syringe-Free Techniques in Ultrasound-Guided Central Jugular Venous Catheterization
ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Summary
NCT07547397 is a registered clinical trial comparing classical syringe technique versus syringe-free technique in ultrasound-guided central jugular venous catheterization. The study aims to evaluate procedure time, number of attempts, and complication rates between the two approaches. The syringe technique uses a guide needle attached to a syringe with blood aspiration confirmation, while the syringe-less technique places the guide wire directly inside the needle without requiring blood draw confirmation. The trial lists an anticipated study completion date of April 23, 2026.
“In the syringe-less technique, the guide wire is placed inside the needle and sent directly into the vein.”
About this source
ClinicalTrials.gov is the NIH-run registry of every clinical trial conducted in the United States, plus most international trials sponsored by US-based companies or institutions. By federal law, sponsors must register Phase 2 through Phase 4 studies before enrolling patients and post results within a year of completion. This feed tracks every new trial registration and study update, around 700 a month: drug interventions, device studies, behavioral protocols, observational research. Watch this if you scout drug candidates moving into mid or late-stage development, monitor competitor pipelines, or follow rare disease research where new trials signal patient hope. GovPing parses sponsor, phase, intervention, and target indication on each entry.
What changed
A new clinical trial registry entry has been posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for NCT07547397, a study sponsored by NIH comparing classical syringe technique versus syringe-free technique for ultrasound-guided central jugular venous catheterization. The trial will evaluate both in-plane and out-of-plane techniques using interventions categorized as out-of-plane technique and in-plane technique.
Healthcare providers and clinical investigators conducting or considering central venous catheterization procedures may find this comparative data relevant to clinical practice decisions. The study focuses on central venous catheters standards and ultrasonography methods, with no regulatory compliance implications associated with this registry entry.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND SYRINGE-FREE TECHNIQUES IN ULTRASOUND-GUIDED CENTRAL JUGULAR VENOUS CATHETERIZATION
N/A NCT07547397 Kind: NA Apr 23, 2026
Abstract
During central venous catheterization, both in-plane and out-of-plane techniques can be used. In the in-plane technique, the entire needle can be visualized with ultrasound. In the in-plane technique with a linear probe, the vessel and needle are visualized longitudinally. In the syringe technique, a guide needle attached to a syringe is first inserted into the vein and blood is aspirated, then the catheter is placed through a wire sent into the vein via the needle. This procedure is performed under ultrasound guidance, visualizing the vessels, guide wire, and needle.
In the syringe-less technique, the guide wire is placed inside the needle and sent directly into the vein. In this technique, there is no need to draw blood into the syringe to confirm that it is in the vein.
The aim of our study is to compare the two ultrasound-guided techniques in terms of procedure time, number of attempts, and complication rates. We expect the syringe-less technique to have a shorter procedure time, fewer attempts, and a lower complication rate.
Conditions: Central Venous Catheters/Standards, Ultrasonography/Methods, Ultrasonography/Standards
Interventions: out-of-plane technique, in-plane technique
Related changes
Get daily alerts for ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NIH.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ClinicalTrials.gov Studies publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.