Central vein catheterization is one of the most frequently performed invasive interventions in intensive care patients. There are many recommendations to minimize the risks of a vein puncture and avoid various complications during the operation of a central venous catheter. These recommendations are adjusted when new evidence of the effectiveness or harm of certain approaches appears. Comparing current activities with current evidence-based guidelines is the way to improve the practice of central venous access management.Objective. Evaluate clinical practice of central venous access in intensive care unit for adults, children and newborns in order to identify specific disadvantage, and based on the results and taking into account international recommendations to propose steps to improve management of central venous catheters.Methods. Free anonymous online survey of anesthesiologists and pediatric anesthesiologists about their practice of management central venous access.Results. We conducted a survey in which 766 intensive care physicians took part. When working with both adults and children, the majority prefers catheterization of the subclavian vein (69,9% and 69,8%, respectively). In neonatal intensive care units, 57,3% of doctors perform umbilical vein catheterization and 50,6% - central vein catheterization from peripheral access. 44,6% of the respondents do not have a central venous access protocol, 54,7% are guided by local, national or international recommendations. 28,2% of doctors use ultrasound navigation to provide central venous access, 54,6% – do not have the opportunity to use ultrasound. After catheterization of the central vein, control of the position of the catheter tip is always performed by 29,9%, 14,4% of respondents never control, 38% – sometimes, when they are in doubt, 9,9% – when it is possible, and 7,8% of respondents have no opportunity to control. For skin preparation before catheterization of the central vein, the majority, 45,6% use iodine-containing solutions and alcohol, 38,1% - only alcohol, 15,8% - a solution with chlorhexidine and alcohol. In the absence of blood sampling from the catheter, or its thrombosis, 34,8% remove the catheter and provide catheterization from another access, 14,7% change the catheter using a guidwire, and 47,9% try to restore patency using a guidewire or rinsing the catheter with a solution of 0,9% NaCl or heparin. The majority of respondents, 88,9%, do not use in their practice special solutions for the prevention of catheter-associated sepsis. With long-term use of the catheter for the prevention of thrombotic occlusion, the majority, 56,4%, use in their practice the routine administration of heparin, 36,7% consider this tactic ineffective. The majority, 55%, believe that the local use of antimicrobial agents at the site of the catheter entry into the skin contributes to the development of fungal infection and resistance to antimicrobial drugs, 19,9% of respondents use such tactics for the prevention of catheter-associated infection, 21,3% – sometimes use. To cover the catheter entry site into the skin, 42,9% use transparent stickers with or without chlorhexidine, 40,9% use the material that is available, 10,4% use ordinary adhesive plaster. 13,6% of the respondents use checklists when working with a central venous catheter, while 63,6% do not use it, but consider this tactic expedient.Conclusions. The survey results found heterogeneity in management of central venous access in patients of different age groups. Most of the answers that correspond to the current standards of central venous access management have been received from neonatal intensive care units’ doctors. Uncorrected management ofcentral venous access in some approaches is due to poor logistic of intensive care units. The practice of central venous access management should be standardized according current evidence-based guidelines.