Weiner Scott G, Sarff Allison R, Esener Dasia E, Shroff Sunil D, Budhram Gavin R, Switkowski Karen M, Mostofi Matthew B, Barus Richard W, Coute Ryan A, Darvish Amir H
Department of Emergency Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Emerg Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):653-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.08.021. Epub 2012 Oct 25.
Emergency physicians (EPs) have become facile with ultrasound-guided intravenous line (USIV) placement in patients for whom access is difficult to achieve, though the procedure can distract the EP from other patient care activities.
We hypothesize that adequately trained Emergency Nurses (ENs) can effectively perform single-operator USIV placement with less physician intervention than is required with blind techniques.
This was a prospective multicenter pilot study. Interested ENs received a 2-h tutorial from an experienced EP. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had either two failed blind peripheral intravenous (i.v.) attempts, or if they reported or had a known history of difficult i.v. placement. Consenting patients were assigned to have either EN USIV placement or standard of care (SOC).
Fifty patients were enrolled, of which 29 were assigned to USIV and 21 to SOC. There were no significant differences in age, race, gender, or reason for inclusion. Physicians were called to assist in 11/21 (52.4%) of SOC cases and 7/29 (24.1%) of USIV cases (p = 0.04). Mean time to i.v. placement (USIV 27.6 vs. SOC 26.4 minutes, p = 0.88) and the number of skin punctures (USIV 2.0 vs. SOC 2.1, p = 0.70) were not significantly different. Patient satisfaction was higher in the USIV group, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (USIV 86.2% vs. SOC 63.2%, p = 0.06). Patient perception of pain on a 10-point scale was also similar (USIV 4.9 vs. SOC 5.5, p = 0.50).
ENs performing single-operator USIV placement in patients with difficult-to-establish i.v. access reduces the need for EP intervention.
尽管超声引导下静脉置管(USIV)操作可能会使急诊医生分心而无法进行其他患者护理活动,但急诊医生(EPs)已能熟练地为难以建立静脉通路的患者进行超声引导下静脉置管。
我们假设,经过充分培训的急诊护士(ENs)能够在比盲目技术所需医生干预更少的情况下,有效地进行单人操作的超声引导下静脉置管。
这是一项前瞻性多中心试点研究。感兴趣的急诊护士接受了一位经验丰富的急诊医生为期2小时的培训。如果患者盲目外周静脉穿刺(i.v.)两次失败,或者报告有或有已知的静脉穿刺困难病史,则符合纳入条件。同意参与的患者被分配接受急诊护士超声引导下静脉置管或标准护理(SOC)。
共纳入50例患者,其中29例被分配接受超声引导下静脉置管,21例接受标准护理。在年龄、种族、性别或纳入原因方面无显著差异。在标准护理组的21例病例中有11例(52.4%)呼叫医生协助,在超声引导下静脉置管组的29例病例中有7例(24.1%)呼叫医生协助(p = 0.04)。静脉置管的平均时间(超声引导下静脉置管组为27.6分钟,标准护理组为26.4分钟,p = 0.88)和皮肤穿刺次数(超声引导下静脉置管组为2.0次,标准护理组为2.1次,p = 0.70)无显著差异。超声引导下静脉置管组患者满意度更高,尽管差异未达到统计学意义(超声引导下静脉置管组为86.2%,标准护理组为63.2%,p = 0.06)。患者在10分制上的疼痛感知也相似(超声引导下静脉置管组为4.9分,标准护理组为5.5分,p = 0.50)。
在静脉通路难以建立的患者中,急诊护士进行单人操作的超声引导下静脉置管可减少对急诊医生干预的需求。