The Journal of emergency medicine · 2016
Power Injection Through Ultrasound-Guided Intravenous Lines: Safety and Efficacy Under an Institutional Protocol.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Witting Michael D, Moayedi Siamak, Dunning Kathy, Babin Lisa S, Cogan Brad M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: After an index case of contrast-associated compartment syndrome, an urban hospital instituted a protocol limiting high-speed injection to intravenous (IV) lines started proximal to the forearm and testing those lines before contrast injection.
OBJECTIVE: In this article, we estimate the safety and efficacy of high-speed injection using this protocol in patients with IV lines inserted under ultrasound guidance.
METHODS: In an ambispective study, we enrolled prospective cohorts of ED patients requiring high-speed radiographic contrast media injection (≥3.5 mL/sec) into two groups: those with IV lines placed under ultrasound guidance and those with IV lines placed using traditional inspection and palpation. We also performed a retrospective review involving those groups. In addition, we reviewed hospital records for all patients with compartment syndrome between January 2010 and December 2011. We calculated 95% confidence intervals using normal approximation or exact calculation.
RESULTS: Between November 2013 and August 2014, the ED referred 32 patients to the Department of Radiology for computed tomography angiography involving high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines. Of these, 25 of 32 (78%) had successful injection (7 failed in the Department of Radiology) vs. 26 of 27 (96%) with catheters inserted using traditional methods (risk difference 0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.38]). Based on retrospective records, we estimated 79 additional cases. We found no cases of compartment syndrome during either period, for an incidence estimate of 0 per 100 cases (95% confidence interval 0-3).
CONCLUSION: A hospital policy for high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines has a safe record. However, 22% of patients with ultrasound-guided IV lines were refused for CT.
OBJECTIVE: In this article, we estimate the safety and efficacy of high-speed injection using this protocol in patients with IV lines inserted under ultrasound guidance.
METHODS: In an ambispective study, we enrolled prospective cohorts of ED patients requiring high-speed radiographic contrast media injection (≥3.5 mL/sec) into two groups: those with IV lines placed under ultrasound guidance and those with IV lines placed using traditional inspection and palpation. We also performed a retrospective review involving those groups. In addition, we reviewed hospital records for all patients with compartment syndrome between January 2010 and December 2011. We calculated 95% confidence intervals using normal approximation or exact calculation.
RESULTS: Between November 2013 and August 2014, the ED referred 32 patients to the Department of Radiology for computed tomography angiography involving high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines. Of these, 25 of 32 (78%) had successful injection (7 failed in the Department of Radiology) vs. 26 of 27 (96%) with catheters inserted using traditional methods (risk difference 0.18 [95% confidence interval -0.01 to 0.38]). Based on retrospective records, we estimated 79 additional cases. We found no cases of compartment syndrome during either period, for an incidence estimate of 0 per 100 cases (95% confidence interval 0-3).
CONCLUSION: A hospital policy for high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines has a safe record. However, 22% of patients with ultrasound-guided IV lines were refused for CT.