Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2016
Comparison between marked versus unmarked introducer needle in real-time ultrasound-guided central vein cannulation: A prospective randomized study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Ghatak Tanmoy, Singh Ratender Kumar, Baronia Arvind Kumar
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Introducer needle tip is not clearly visible during the real-time ultrasound (US)-guided central vein cannulation (CVC). Blind tip leads to mechanical complications. This study was designed to evaluate whether real-time US-guided CVC with a marked introducer needle is superior to the existing unmarked needle.
METHODOLOGY: Sixty-two critically ill patients aged 18-60 years of either sex were included in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups based on whether a marked or unmarked introducer needle was used. Both groups underwent real-time US-guided CVC by a single experienced operator. Aseptically, introducer needle was indented with markings spaced 0.5 cm (single marking) and every 1 cm (double marking). This needle was used in the marked group. Approximate depths (centimeter) of the anterior and posterior wall of the internal jugular vein, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura were appreciated from the midpoint of the probe in short-axis view at the level of the cricoid cartilage. Access time (seconds) was recorded using a stopwatch. A number of attempts and complications such as arterial puncture, hematoma, and pneumothorax of either procedure were compared.
RESULTS: Both marked needle and unmarked needle groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, severity scores, platelet counts, prothrombin time, and distance from the midpoint of the probe to the vein, artery, and pleura and skin-to-guide wire insertion access time. However, an average number of attempts (P = 0.03) and complications such as hematoma were significantly lower (P = 0.02) with the marked introducer needle group. Pneumothorax was not reported in any of the groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study supports the idea that marked introducer needle can further reduce the iatrogenic complications of US-guided CVC.
METHODOLOGY: Sixty-two critically ill patients aged 18-60 years of either sex were included in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups based on whether a marked or unmarked introducer needle was used. Both groups underwent real-time US-guided CVC by a single experienced operator. Aseptically, introducer needle was indented with markings spaced 0.5 cm (single marking) and every 1 cm (double marking). This needle was used in the marked group. Approximate depths (centimeter) of the anterior and posterior wall of the internal jugular vein, anterior wall of the internal carotid artery, and lung pleura were appreciated from the midpoint of the probe in short-axis view at the level of the cricoid cartilage. Access time (seconds) was recorded using a stopwatch. A number of attempts and complications such as arterial puncture, hematoma, and pneumothorax of either procedure were compared.
RESULTS: Both marked needle and unmarked needle groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, severity scores, platelet counts, prothrombin time, and distance from the midpoint of the probe to the vein, artery, and pleura and skin-to-guide wire insertion access time. However, an average number of attempts (P = 0.03) and complications such as hematoma were significantly lower (P = 0.02) with the marked introducer needle group. Pneumothorax was not reported in any of the groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study supports the idea that marked introducer needle can further reduce the iatrogenic complications of US-guided CVC.