The journal of vascular access · 2020
A randomised clinical trial of ultrasound guided cannulation of difficult fistulae for dialysis access.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Eves Joshua, Cai Paris, Latham Ross, Leung Clement, Carradice Daniel, Chetter Ian, Smith George
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are preferred for dialysis access but require accurate cannulation for effective dialysis. Evidence supports improvements in cannulation and complication rates using ultrasound guidance (USG) in cannulating other sites. This mixed methods, randomised controlled trial aimed to assess effects of USG during AVF cannulation.
METHODS: Participants with difficult to cannulate AVF had each cannulation event randomised to USG or standard technique (no USG). The primary outcome was the incidence and number of additional needle passes. Secondary outcomes included: the incidence and number of additional skin punctures; time to achieve two needle cannulation; pain associated with cannulation; local complications. Qualitative outcomes were assessed using patient and staff questionnaires.
RESULTS: Thirty-two participants had 346 cannulation events randomised (170 to USG and 176 to standard cannulation). USG resulted in a significant reduction in additional needle passes (72 vs 99 p = 0.007) and additional skin punctures (10 vs 25 p = 0.016.) but prolonged time to cannulation (p > 0.001). There was no difference in pain score (p = 0.705) or complications between groups. Questionnaires demonstrated that USG cannulation is acceptable to patients and staff.
CONCLUSION: USG cannulation of AVF is more accurate and no more painful than non-image guided cannulation, but prolonged time to cannulation. Some of the excess time involved may be due to the trial being performed early in cannulating staff's learning curve with the USG technique. Further work to elucidate which patients gain most benefit from USG cannulation and the effect of USG on cannulation complications and AVF patency is warranted.
METHODS: Participants with difficult to cannulate AVF had each cannulation event randomised to USG or standard technique (no USG). The primary outcome was the incidence and number of additional needle passes. Secondary outcomes included: the incidence and number of additional skin punctures; time to achieve two needle cannulation; pain associated with cannulation; local complications. Qualitative outcomes were assessed using patient and staff questionnaires.
RESULTS: Thirty-two participants had 346 cannulation events randomised (170 to USG and 176 to standard cannulation). USG resulted in a significant reduction in additional needle passes (72 vs 99 p = 0.007) and additional skin punctures (10 vs 25 p = 0.016.) but prolonged time to cannulation (p > 0.001). There was no difference in pain score (p = 0.705) or complications between groups. Questionnaires demonstrated that USG cannulation is acceptable to patients and staff.
CONCLUSION: USG cannulation of AVF is more accurate and no more painful than non-image guided cannulation, but prolonged time to cannulation. Some of the excess time involved may be due to the trial being performed early in cannulating staff's learning curve with the USG technique. Further work to elucidate which patients gain most benefit from USG cannulation and the effect of USG on cannulation complications and AVF patency is warranted.