Takeshita Jun, Nishiyama Kei, Beppu Satoru, Sasahashi Nozomu, Shime Nobuaki
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Hospital Organization, Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Institute of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 7;12(12):e0189258. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189258. eCollection 2017.
Visualizing the needle tip using the short-axis (SA) ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization approach can be challenging. It has been suggested to start the process with the SA approach and then switch to the long-axis (LA); however, to our knowledge, this combination has not been evaluated. We compared the combined short- and long-axis (SLA) approach with the SA approach in a manikin study.
We performed a prospective randomized controlled cross-over study in an urban emergency department and intensive care unit. Resident physicians in post-graduate years 1-2 performed a simulated ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein puncture using the SA and SLA approaches on manikins. Twenty resident physicians were randomly assigned to two equal groups: (1) one group performed punctures using the SA approach followed by SLA; and (2) the other performed the same procedures in the opposite order. We compared the success rate and procedure duration for the two approaches. Procedural success was defined as insertion of the guide-wire into the vein while visualizing the needle tip at the time of anterior wall puncture, without penetrating the posterior wall.
Six resident physicians (30%) performed both approaches successfully, while 12 (60%) performed the SLA approach, but not the SA, successfully. Those who performed the SA approach successfully also succeeded with the SLA approach. Two resident physicians (10%) failed to perform both approaches. The SLA approach had a significantly higher success rate than the SA approach (P < 0.001). The median (interquartile range) procedure duration was 59.5 [46.0-88.5] seconds and 45.0 [37.5-84.0] seconds for the SLA and SA approaches, respectively. The difference of the duration between the two procedures was 15.5 [0-28.5] seconds. There was no significant difference in duration between the two approaches (P = 0.12).
Using the SLA approach significantly improved the success rate of internal jugular vein puncture performed by novice physicians on a manikin model, without increasing procedural duration. Further clinical trials are warranted to confirm the procedure's utility in actual patients.
UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000026199.
使用短轴(SA)超声引导下的中心静脉置管方法可视化针尖具有挑战性。有人建议先用SA方法开始操作,然后切换到长轴(LA)方法;然而,据我们所知,这种联合方法尚未得到评估。我们在一项人体模型研究中比较了短轴与长轴联合(SLA)方法和SA方法。
我们在一家城市急诊科和重症监护病房进行了一项前瞻性随机对照交叉研究。1-2年级的住院医师在人体模型上使用SA和SLA方法进行模拟超声引导下的颈内静脉穿刺。20名住院医师被随机分为两组:(1)一组先使用SA方法穿刺,然后使用SLA方法;(2)另一组按相反顺序进行相同操作。我们比较了两种方法的成功率和操作持续时间。操作成功定义为在前壁穿刺时可视化针尖的同时将导丝插入静脉,且未穿透后壁。
6名住院医师(30%)成功完成了两种方法,而12名(60%)成功完成了SLA方法,但未成功完成SA方法。成功完成SA方法的人也成功完成了SLA方法。2名住院医师(10%)两种方法均未成功。SLA方法的成功率显著高于SA方法(P < 0.001)。SLA和SA方法的中位(四分位间距)操作持续时间分别为59.5 [46.0 - 88.5]秒和45.0 [37.5 - 84.0]秒。两种操作持续时间的差异为15.5 [0 - 28.5]秒。两种方法在持续时间上无显著差异(P = 0.12)。
在人体模型上,使用SLA方法显著提高了新手医师进行颈内静脉穿刺的成功率,且未增加操作持续时间。有必要进行进一步的临床试验以证实该操作在实际患者中的效用。
UMIN临床试验注册中心UMIN000026199。