Journal of vascular nursing : official publication of the Society for Peripheral Vascular Nursing · 2024
Early identification of vascular access site complications and frequent heart rate and blood pressure monitoring after cardiac catheterization: A scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clark Janelle Beaudry, Hyrkas Kristiina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Nurses perform frequent heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) monitoring, a widespread and longstanding practice, after cardiac catheterization (CC) to identify vascular access site complications for femoral and radial arterial approach in adult patients.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to answer two questions: (1) how does the available evidence support frequent HR and BP monitoring after CC via femoral and radial approach in adult patients and (2) how does this practice prompt bedside nurses in identifying the procedure's major vascular access site complications, including bleeding, hematoma, and pseudoanurysm?
METHOD: Following the scoping review approach, literature search was conducted (PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar) by two co-authors and medical librarian. We reviewed, evaluated, and analyzed the evidence from twenty articles.
RESULTS: The reviewed medical and nursing literature revealed findings challenging the present practice. Out of fifteen research studies, five found frequent HR and BP monitoring after CC to be uninformative while the remaining ten did not report frequent vital signs. Two research articles reported that vascular complications after CC were discovered by RNs directly assessing the access site or by the patients themselves, unrelated to HR and BP. Five non-research articles were included, which all recommended frequent HR and BP monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Frequent HR and BP assessment during the recovery period is not supported by empirical research despite being consistently recommended by nursing guidelines and expert opinion articles. Current evidence supports frequent vascular access site assessments and patient education.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to answer two questions: (1) how does the available evidence support frequent HR and BP monitoring after CC via femoral and radial approach in adult patients and (2) how does this practice prompt bedside nurses in identifying the procedure's major vascular access site complications, including bleeding, hematoma, and pseudoanurysm?
METHOD: Following the scoping review approach, literature search was conducted (PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar) by two co-authors and medical librarian. We reviewed, evaluated, and analyzed the evidence from twenty articles.
RESULTS: The reviewed medical and nursing literature revealed findings challenging the present practice. Out of fifteen research studies, five found frequent HR and BP monitoring after CC to be uninformative while the remaining ten did not report frequent vital signs. Two research articles reported that vascular complications after CC were discovered by RNs directly assessing the access site or by the patients themselves, unrelated to HR and BP. Five non-research articles were included, which all recommended frequent HR and BP monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Frequent HR and BP assessment during the recovery period is not supported by empirical research despite being consistently recommended by nursing guidelines and expert opinion articles. Current evidence supports frequent vascular access site assessments and patient education.