技术重要吗?新鲜全血捐献静脉通路技术在时间和成功率方面的比较。

David K Rodgers, Cecil J Simmons, Philip Castaneda, Brandon M Carius
{"title":"技术重要吗?新鲜全血捐献静脉通路技术在时间和成功率方面的比较。","authors":"David K Rodgers, Cecil J Simmons, Philip Castaneda, Brandon M Carius","doi":"10.55460/WJ7Z-QH0P","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fresh whole blood (FWB) is essential for hemorrhagic shock resuscitation, but little literature evaluates medics ability to obtain intravenous (IV) access. Options for IV access include a 16-gauge hypodermic needle attached to the FWB collection bag (straight stick technique [SST]) and an 18-gauge angiocatheter with a saline lock (saline lock technique [SLT]), which may improve access given its confirmatory flash chamber and medic familiarity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of U.S. Army medics performing FWB transfusion training initiated IV access with SST or SLT for FWB collection to achieve the minimum transfusable volume of 527g. The primary outcome was seconds to achieve minimum transfusable volume. Secondary outcomes included first-attempt IV access success and end-user feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen medics demonstrated a shorter median time to reach the minimum transfusable volume with SST (819.36 [IQR 594.40-952.30] sec) compared with SLT (1148.43 [IQR 890.90-1643.70] sec, P=.002). No sequence or period effects occurred. Compared with SLT, SST demonstrated higher first-attempt IV access success (18, 78% versus 11, 48%; P=.037). Accordingly, most medics reported SLT would perform worse than SST for FWB collection and IV access in tactical environments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Medics achieved minimum transfusable volume faster and higher first-attempt IV access success with SST than SLT. Future studies should compare a 16-gauge SLT and SST, and further evaluate IV access techniques for improved evaluation of medic skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":53630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Technique Matter? A Comparison of Fresh Whole Blood Donation Venous Access Techniques for Time and Success.\",\"authors\":\"David K Rodgers, Cecil J Simmons, Philip Castaneda, Brandon M Carius\",\"doi\":\"10.55460/WJ7Z-QH0P\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fresh whole blood (FWB) is essential for hemorrhagic shock resuscitation, but little literature evaluates medics ability to obtain intravenous (IV) access. Options for IV access include a 16-gauge hypodermic needle attached to the FWB collection bag (straight stick technique [SST]) and an 18-gauge angiocatheter with a saline lock (saline lock technique [SLT]), which may improve access given its confirmatory flash chamber and medic familiarity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of U.S. Army medics performing FWB transfusion training initiated IV access with SST or SLT for FWB collection to achieve the minimum transfusable volume of 527g. The primary outcome was seconds to achieve minimum transfusable volume. Secondary outcomes included first-attempt IV access success and end-user feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen medics demonstrated a shorter median time to reach the minimum transfusable volume with SST (819.36 [IQR 594.40-952.30] sec) compared with SLT (1148.43 [IQR 890.90-1643.70] sec, P=.002). No sequence or period effects occurred. Compared with SLT, SST demonstrated higher first-attempt IV access success (18, 78% versus 11, 48%; P=.037). Accordingly, most medics reported SLT would perform worse than SST for FWB collection and IV access in tactical environments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Medics achieved minimum transfusable volume faster and higher first-attempt IV access success with SST than SLT. Future studies should compare a 16-gauge SLT and SST, and further evaluate IV access techniques for improved evaluation of medic skills.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55460/WJ7Z-QH0P\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of special operations medicine : a peer reviewed journal for SOF medical professionals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55460/WJ7Z-QH0P","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Does Technique Matter? A Comparison of Fresh Whole Blood Donation Venous Access Techniques for Time and Success.

Background: Fresh whole blood (FWB) is essential for hemorrhagic shock resuscitation, but little literature evaluates medics ability to obtain intravenous (IV) access. Options for IV access include a 16-gauge hypodermic needle attached to the FWB collection bag (straight stick technique [SST]) and an 18-gauge angiocatheter with a saline lock (saline lock technique [SLT]), which may improve access given its confirmatory flash chamber and medic familiarity.

Methods: In a prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of U.S. Army medics performing FWB transfusion training initiated IV access with SST or SLT for FWB collection to achieve the minimum transfusable volume of 527g. The primary outcome was seconds to achieve minimum transfusable volume. Secondary outcomes included first-attempt IV access success and end-user feedback.

Results: Eighteen medics demonstrated a shorter median time to reach the minimum transfusable volume with SST (819.36 [IQR 594.40-952.30] sec) compared with SLT (1148.43 [IQR 890.90-1643.70] sec, P=.002). No sequence or period effects occurred. Compared with SLT, SST demonstrated higher first-attempt IV access success (18, 78% versus 11, 48%; P=.037). Accordingly, most medics reported SLT would perform worse than SST for FWB collection and IV access in tactical environments.

Conclusions: Medics achieved minimum transfusable volume faster and higher first-attempt IV access success with SST than SLT. Future studies should compare a 16-gauge SLT and SST, and further evaluate IV access techniques for improved evaluation of medic skills.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊最新文献
Abdominal Aortic Junctional Tourniquets: Clinically Important Increases in Pressure in Aortic Zone 1 and Zone 3 in a Cadaveric Study Directly Relevant to Combat Medics Treating Non-Compressible Torso Hemorrhage. Chronicity of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Comparison of Special Operators and Conventional Forces. On Saving - The Psychosocial Benefit of Saving Lives in War and Society. Rethinking the Operational Blood Bank Dilemma: Out of the "Box" Blood Storage and Transportation Evaluation. Special Forces Medics Ability to Identify Wooden Foreign Bodies by Point-of-Care Ultrasound.
×
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