Rønning Marit I, Benschop Willem P, Øvrehus Marius A, Hultstrøm Maria, Hallan Stein I
Department of Nephrology, St. Olav Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital, Lillehammer, Norway.
Kidney Med. 2021 Dec 1;4(2):100393. doi: 10.1016/j.xkme.2021.10.006. eCollection 2022 Feb.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Arteriovenous fistula cannulation with the buttonhole technique is often preferred by patients but has been associated with an increased infection risk. Guidelines disagree on whether it should be abandoned, thus we assessed a technologically simple method to facilitate gentler arteriovenous fistula cannulation with potentially less discomfort and damage to the epithelial lining of the buttonhole tract.
8-week, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients with buttonhole tracts receiving hemodialysis at 7 dialysis centers in Norway were randomized to the intervention group (43 patients, 658 cannulations) or control group (40 patients, 611 cannulations).
Direction and angle of the established buttonhole tract were marked on the forearm skin in the intervention group, whereas the control group had no structured cannulation information system.
The primary outcome was successful cannulation, defined as correct placement of both blunt needles at the first attempt without needing to change needles, perform extra perforations, or reposition the needle. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported difficulty of cannulation (verbal rating scale: 1 = very easy, 6 = impossible) and intensity of pain (numeric rating scale: 0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable pain).
After a 2-week run-in period, successful cannulation was achieved in 73.9% and 74.8% of the patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively (relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.12; = 0.85). However, the probability of a difficult arterial cannulation (verbal rating scale, 3-6) was significantly lower in the intervention group (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; = 0.001). There were no improvements for venous cannulations. Furthermore, the probability of a painful cannulation (numeric rating scale, 3-10) was lower in the intervention group (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.51-1.02; = 0.06).
Unable to evaluate hard end points such as infections and thrombosis owing to the small sample size.
Marking direction and angle of cannulation did not improve cannulation success rates; however, patients more often reported an unproblematic procedure and less pain.
None.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01536548).
患者通常更倾向于采用钮扣式技术进行动静脉内瘘穿刺,但该技术与感染风险增加有关。对于是否应摒弃该技术,指南存在分歧,因此我们评估了一种技术上简单的方法,以促进更轻柔的动静脉内瘘穿刺,同时可能减少对钮扣式穿刺通道上皮衬里的不适和损伤。
为期8周的前瞻性、开放标签、随机对照试验。
在挪威7个透析中心接受血液透析且有钮扣式穿刺通道的患者被随机分为干预组(43例患者,658次穿刺)或对照组(40例患者,611次穿刺)。
干预组在前臂皮肤上标记已建立的钮扣式穿刺通道的方向和角度,而对照组没有结构化的穿刺信息系统。
经过2周的导入期后,干预组和对照组分别有73.9%和74.8%的患者成功穿刺(相对风险[RR],0.99;95%置信区间,0.87 - 1.12;P = 0.85)。然而,干预组动脉穿刺困难(言语评定量表,3 - 6)的概率显著更低(RR,0.69;95%置信区间,0.55 - 0.85;P = 0.001)。静脉穿刺方面没有改善。此外,干预组穿刺疼痛(数字评定量表,3 - 10)的概率更低(RR,0.72;95%置信区间,0.51 - 1.02;P = 0.06)。
由于样本量小,无法评估感染和血栓形成等硬终点。
标记穿刺方向和角度并未提高穿刺成功率;然而,患者更多地报告操作顺利且疼痛减轻。
无。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01536548)