Let the resident try: Evaluation of central venous catheter placement in patients with hypotensive trauma using trauma video review

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2025.109215
Ryan P. Dumas MD , Bahaa Succar MD , Michael A. Vella MD MBA , Amelia Maiga MD MPH , Daniel N. Holena MD MSCE
{"title":"Let the resident try: Evaluation of central venous catheter placement in patients with hypotensive trauma using trauma video review","authors":"Ryan P. Dumas MD ,&nbsp;Bahaa Succar MD ,&nbsp;Michael A. Vella MD MBA ,&nbsp;Amelia Maiga MD MPH ,&nbsp;Daniel N. Holena MD MSCE","doi":"10.1016/j.surg.2025.109215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Intraosseous access has the greatest initial success rate in patients with hypotensive trauma and is significantly faster than central venous catheter access. However, central venous catheters play a critical role in the resuscitation of patients with hypotensive trauma. We sought to identify factors associated with successful placement of central venous catheter and hypothesized that attending surgeons would be more successful than trainees in the placement of central venous catheters.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We analyzed data abstracted from audiovisual recordings from a multicenter study of intravascular access in hypotensive (initial systolic blood pressure &lt;90 mm Hg) injured patients. The primary exposure of interest was practitioner type (attendings compared with trainees [residents/fellows]). The primary outcome of interest was central venous catheter access attempt success rate. We also examined success rates stratified by site of attempt (femoral compared with subclavian) and the association between attempt success and patient factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 242 central venous catheter access attempts occurred in 171 patients (median age, 38 years [interquartile range, 27–53], 84% male, Injury Severity Score of 26 [interquartile range, 17–41], initial systolic blood pressure 59 [interquartile range, 0–78] mm Hg) across 15 centers. Trainees performed 170 of 242 (70%) of central venous catheter attempts. Success did not differ between groups (attendings 60% vs trainees 59%, <em>P</em> = .96). Patient factors including age, sex, mechanism, and Injury Severity Score were not associated with central venous catheter success rates, but success rates were greater in patients with measurable systolic blood pressure (71% vs 45%, <em>P</em> &lt; .001). Attendings were more successful than trainees at subclavian attempts (66% vs 44%, <em>P</em> = .04).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>No significant difference was found in overall central venous catheter success rate by practitioner type, but attendings were more successful at subclavian lines, and, on average, approximately 1 minute faster. Patient condition and skill level should be considered when providing trainees with the opportunity to place central venous catheter in hypotensive patients, particularly at the subclavian location.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":22152,"journal":{"name":"Surgery","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 109215"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039606025000674","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Intraosseous access has the greatest initial success rate in patients with hypotensive trauma and is significantly faster than central venous catheter access. However, central venous catheters play a critical role in the resuscitation of patients with hypotensive trauma. We sought to identify factors associated with successful placement of central venous catheter and hypothesized that attending surgeons would be more successful than trainees in the placement of central venous catheters.

Methods

We analyzed data abstracted from audiovisual recordings from a multicenter study of intravascular access in hypotensive (initial systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) injured patients. The primary exposure of interest was practitioner type (attendings compared with trainees [residents/fellows]). The primary outcome of interest was central venous catheter access attempt success rate. We also examined success rates stratified by site of attempt (femoral compared with subclavian) and the association between attempt success and patient factors.

Results

A total of 242 central venous catheter access attempts occurred in 171 patients (median age, 38 years [interquartile range, 27–53], 84% male, Injury Severity Score of 26 [interquartile range, 17–41], initial systolic blood pressure 59 [interquartile range, 0–78] mm Hg) across 15 centers. Trainees performed 170 of 242 (70%) of central venous catheter attempts. Success did not differ between groups (attendings 60% vs trainees 59%, P = .96). Patient factors including age, sex, mechanism, and Injury Severity Score were not associated with central venous catheter success rates, but success rates were greater in patients with measurable systolic blood pressure (71% vs 45%, P < .001). Attendings were more successful than trainees at subclavian attempts (66% vs 44%, P = .04).

Conclusion

No significant difference was found in overall central venous catheter success rate by practitioner type, but attendings were more successful at subclavian lines, and, on average, approximately 1 minute faster. Patient condition and skill level should be considered when providing trainees with the opportunity to place central venous catheter in hypotensive patients, particularly at the subclavian location.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
让住院医师试一试:使用创伤视频回顾评估低血压创伤患者中心静脉导管的放置
背景:在低血压创伤患者中,经骨导管的初始成功率最高,且明显快于中心静脉导管。然而,中心静脉导管在低血压创伤患者的复苏中起着至关重要的作用。我们试图确定与中心静脉导管放置成功相关的因素,并假设主治外科医生在中心静脉导管放置方面比实习生更成功。方法我们分析了一项关于低血压(初始收缩压<;90 mm Hg)损伤患者血管内通路的多中心研究的视听资料。感兴趣的主要暴露是从业人员类型(主治医师与实习生[住院医师/研究员]相比)。主要观察结果为中心静脉导管插管成功率。我们还检查了按尝试部位(股骨与锁骨下比较)分层的成功率,以及尝试成功与患者因素之间的关系。结果15个中心171例患者共242次中心静脉置管尝试(中位年龄38岁[四分位数范围27-53],84%为男性,损伤严重程度评分26[四分位数范围17-41],初始收缩压59[四分位数范围0-78]mm Hg)。在242次中心静脉置管尝试中,学员进行了170次(70%)。成功率在两组之间没有差异(出席者60% vs受训者59%,P = 0.96)。患者因素包括年龄、性别、机制和损伤严重程度评分与中心静脉导管成功率无关,但收缩压可测量的患者的成功率更高(71% vs 45%, P <;措施)。在锁骨下尝试时,主治医师比受训人员更成功(66% vs 44%, P = .04)。结论不同执业医师类型的中心静脉置管总成功率无显著差异,但在锁骨下线,主治医师成功率更高,平均快1分钟左右。在给低血压患者,特别是锁骨下位置放置中心静脉导管时,应考虑患者的情况和技能水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Surgery
Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
687
审稿时长
64 days
期刊介绍: For 66 years, Surgery has published practical, authoritative information about procedures, clinical advances, and major trends shaping general surgery. Each issue features original scientific contributions and clinical reports. Peer-reviewed articles cover topics in oncology, trauma, gastrointestinal, vascular, and transplantation surgery. The journal also publishes papers from the meetings of its sponsoring societies, the Society of University Surgeons, the Central Surgical Association, and the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons.
期刊最新文献
Commentary on "Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer: updated systematic review, individual-patient-data meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials". Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus open Lichtenstein primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Introduction to qualitative research in surgery. Trends and predictors of hospital charges in liver and pancreatic surgery: A comparative analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches. It's Showtime! Two interventions reduce operating room turnover time by 20% in an academic medical center.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1