1 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University, 789 Howard Ave, New Haven, CT 06519-1304.
2 Present address: Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Aug;209(2):W363-W369. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17111. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
Given the rarity of contrast reactions in practice, most radiologists have little to no experience in their management, and errors are common. The purpose of this study was to compare treatment of a moderate-severity reaction with intramuscular epinephrine by either the traditional manual method of drawing up and delivering epinephrine with a needle and syringe or the use of an epinephrine autoinjector.
All diagnostic radiologists at the study institution were requested to participate in an annual contrast reaction simulation program, which consisted of three simulation scenarios in a high-fidelity simulation laboratory. During the moderate-severity simulation scenario, the time to administer intramuscular epinephrine and any errors in administration were recorded. Groups were randomized to use an autoinjector device or manual delivery. All participants completed a survey assessing the experience with epinephrine and their comfort in treating contrast reactions using a traditional manual approach versus an epinephrine autoinjector.
Among 189 participants in the contrast reaction simulation program, 76 participated in a moderate-severity reaction simulation two to five at a time in 25 sessions. Mean total time to administration was significantly longer for manual (108.8 seconds) than for autoinjector (38.7 seconds) delivery (p < 0.001). There were 11 errors in the manual group and one error in the autoinjector group (p = 0.005). Ninety-four percent of participants reported feeling very comfortable or comfortable with the autoinjector as opposed to 60% for manual delivery (p < 0.001). Overall, 96% of participants thought the autoinjector was easier to use.
Use of an epinephrine autoinjector for treatment of contrast reactions was associated with a significantly greater degree of provider comfort, shorter time to administration, and fewer errors.
鉴于实践中对比剂反应的罕见性,大多数放射科医生在管理方面几乎没有经验,并且经常犯错。本研究的目的是比较使用传统的手动方法(即用针和注射器抽取和注射肾上腺素)和使用肾上腺素自动注射器治疗中度严重反应的效果。
要求研究机构的所有诊断放射科医生参加年度对比剂反应模拟计划,该计划包括在高保真模拟实验室进行的三个模拟场景。在中度严重模拟场景中,记录了给予肌肉内肾上腺素的时间和给药过程中的任何错误。随机分组使用自动注射器装置或手动给药。所有参与者都完成了一项调查,评估他们对肾上腺素的经验以及使用传统手动方法与肾上腺素自动注射器治疗对比剂反应的舒适度。
在对比剂反应模拟计划的 189 名参与者中,有 76 名在 25 个会议中每次 2 至 5 人参加了中度严重反应模拟。手动(108.8 秒)给药的总时间明显长于自动注射器(38.7 秒)(p <0.001)。手动组有 11 个错误,自动注射器组有 1 个错误(p = 0.005)。94%的参与者表示对自动注射器非常舒适或舒适,而手动给药的比例为 60%(p <0.001)。总体而言,96%的参与者认为自动注射器更易于使用。
使用肾上腺素自动注射器治疗对比剂反应与提供者舒适度显著提高、给药时间缩短和错误减少有关。