A Prospective Comparison of Ultrasound Guided Versus Palpation Method for Radial Artery Catheter Placement

IF 0.2 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Pakistan Heart Journal Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.47144/phj.v56i1.2414
K. Kumar, A. Khuwaja, A. Mangi, S. A. Khan, Hamna Tariq, Sayed Zaheeruddin, Saleha Akhtar
{"title":"A Prospective Comparison of Ultrasound Guided Versus Palpation Method for Radial Artery Catheter Placement","authors":"K. Kumar, A. Khuwaja, A. Mangi, S. A. Khan, Hamna Tariq, Sayed Zaheeruddin, Saleha Akhtar","doi":"10.47144/phj.v56i1.2414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound guided vs. conventional palpation method for radial artery cannulation in the operating room for patients undergoing elective open-heart operations.\nMethodology: This prospective observational study was carried at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Disease (NICVD) in Karachi and Sukkur. All cannulation procedures were performed by anesthesia residents (R-1). Two equal sized independent groups of patients based on radial artery cannulation technique, either ultrasound guided (USG) or conventional palpation method (CPM) were recruited. Artery cannulation success along with number of attempts, total duration, number of additional operators, need for change of site, and complications were recorded.\nResults: A total of 70 patients were recruited in each of the group, mean patient age was 52.43±13.53 years vs. 50.71 ± 14.1 years; p=0.605 with proportion of male patients as 65.7% (46) vs. 77.1% (54); p=0.290, for USG and CPM, respectively. Artery cannulation success rate was 74.3% (52) vs. 80% (56); p=0.569, mean number of attempts was 1.71±1.05 vs. 1.51±0.89; p=0.391, mean total duration was 7.76±3.78 minutes vs. 5.42 ± 8.2 minutes; p=0.131, mean number of additional operators was 0.74±0.44 vs. 0.89±0.32; p=0.128, need for change of site was 11.4% (8) vs. 2.9% (2); p=0.356, and complications were observed in 8.6% (6) vs. 2.9% (2); p=0.614 for USG and CPM, respectively.\nConclusion: In this observational study, no significant differences were observed in the effectiveness of USG and CPM for radial artery cannulation when performed by newly inducted anesthesia residents.","PeriodicalId":42273,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Heart Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47144/phj.v56i1.2414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound guided vs. conventional palpation method for radial artery cannulation in the operating room for patients undergoing elective open-heart operations. Methodology: This prospective observational study was carried at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Disease (NICVD) in Karachi and Sukkur. All cannulation procedures were performed by anesthesia residents (R-1). Two equal sized independent groups of patients based on radial artery cannulation technique, either ultrasound guided (USG) or conventional palpation method (CPM) were recruited. Artery cannulation success along with number of attempts, total duration, number of additional operators, need for change of site, and complications were recorded. Results: A total of 70 patients were recruited in each of the group, mean patient age was 52.43±13.53 years vs. 50.71 ± 14.1 years; p=0.605 with proportion of male patients as 65.7% (46) vs. 77.1% (54); p=0.290, for USG and CPM, respectively. Artery cannulation success rate was 74.3% (52) vs. 80% (56); p=0.569, mean number of attempts was 1.71±1.05 vs. 1.51±0.89; p=0.391, mean total duration was 7.76±3.78 minutes vs. 5.42 ± 8.2 minutes; p=0.131, mean number of additional operators was 0.74±0.44 vs. 0.89±0.32; p=0.128, need for change of site was 11.4% (8) vs. 2.9% (2); p=0.356, and complications were observed in 8.6% (6) vs. 2.9% (2); p=0.614 for USG and CPM, respectively. Conclusion: In this observational study, no significant differences were observed in the effectiveness of USG and CPM for radial artery cannulation when performed by newly inducted anesthesia residents.
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
超声引导与触诊方法在桡动脉导管置入中的前瞻性比较
目的:本研究的目的是评估超声引导与常规触诊方法在择期心内直视手术患者桡动脉插管的有效性。方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究在卡拉奇和苏库尔的国家心血管疾病研究所(NICVD)进行。所有插管过程均由麻醉住院医师(R-1)执行。采用超声引导(USG)和常规触诊(CPM)两种方法进行桡动脉插管技术,两组患者大小相等。记录动脉插管成功率、尝试次数、总持续时间、额外操作人员数量、更换位置的需要以及并发症。结果:两组共纳入患者70例,患者平均年龄分别为52.43±13.53岁和50.71±14.1岁;P =0.605,男性患者比例为65.7%(46例)比77.1%(54例);USG和CPM的p=0.290。动脉插管成功率74.3%(52例)vs. 80%(56例);P =0.569,平均尝试次数为1.71±1.05∶1.51±0.89;P =0.391,平均总病程为7.76±3.78 min vs 5.42±8.2 min;P =0.131,平均增加手术人数为0.74±0.44 vs 0.89±0.32;P =0.128,需要更换部位的患者分别为11.4%(8人)和2.9%(2人);P =0.356,并发症发生率为8.6%(6)比2.9% (2);USG和CPM的p=0.614。结论:在本观察性研究中,USG和CPM对新入局住院医师桡动脉插管的有效性无显著差异。
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
Pakistan Heart Journal
Pakistan Heart Journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Retrospective Chart Review of the Head-Up Tilt Table Test at a Tertiary Care University Hospital Improving Quality Health Care Services by Implementing DMAIC Approach in Paediatric Cardiology Department of Public Hospital of Sindh, Pakistan: A Case Study Association of Body Mass Index with Peripheral Vascular Resistance Obesity from Clinical Evaluation to Management Local Perspective Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Cardiovascular Practice
×
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:481959085
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