中心静脉置管:一种评估手术过程和操作者的评分系统(CVCI评分/Gaber评分)。

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2020-11-03 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/8156801
Sayed Gaber, Ahmed Yehia, Beshoy Nabil, Ahmed Samir
{"title":"中心静脉置管:一种评估手术过程和操作者的评分系统(CVCI评分/Gaber评分)。","authors":"Sayed Gaber, Ahmed Yehia, Beshoy Nabil, Ahmed Samir","doi":"10.1155/2020/8156801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Currently, there is no method to assess the performance while inserting a central venous catheter. We suggest a new scoring system for evaluation of both the technique as well as the operator, and then we applied it for the comparison between the landmark and ultrasound techniques to assess its validity. Methods. Four hundred patients were divided into two equal groups: group (A): internal jugular vein (IJV) and group (B): subclavian vein (SV). The landmark technique and the ultrasound guidance were used equally (100 patients for each) in both groups. Results In group (A), 20% of patients in the landmark group achieved score 4, while 82% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score. This suggests that the ultrasound technique for catheterization of IJV decreased overall complications and improved the success rate. In group (B), there were 70% of patients in the landmark group who achieved score 5, while 49% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score which proposes that the landmark technique might be deceptively better than the ultrasound technique for catheterization of SV. This could be because the time required for catheterization of SV by the ultrasound technique was longer than that in the landmark technique. Overall complications of 15% with the landmark technique vs. 2% with ultrasound guidance in this group of patients are not only statistically significant but also increase morbidity and mortality with a highly invasive procedure. Complications and their incidences are by far more significant than seconds of time. Our results suggest that the ultrasound technique could decrease the incidence of overall complications, but it is time-consuming in group (B). These results support the validity of our new scoring system. Conclusion We suggest a new scoring system for CVC insertion that can be used for evaluation of both the technique and the operator. It can evaluate the performance of junior staff and follow their progress. It can be applied in the medical and critical care practice as well as the quality management privileges and protocols.","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":"2020 ","pages":"8156801"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/8156801","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Central Venous Catheter Insertion: A Scoring System for Evaluation of Both the Procedure and the Operator (CVCI Score/Gaber Score).\",\"authors\":\"Sayed Gaber, Ahmed Yehia, Beshoy Nabil, Ahmed Samir\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2020/8156801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction Currently, there is no method to assess the performance while inserting a central venous catheter. We suggest a new scoring system for evaluation of both the technique as well as the operator, and then we applied it for the comparison between the landmark and ultrasound techniques to assess its validity. Methods. Four hundred patients were divided into two equal groups: group (A): internal jugular vein (IJV) and group (B): subclavian vein (SV). The landmark technique and the ultrasound guidance were used equally (100 patients for each) in both groups. Results In group (A), 20% of patients in the landmark group achieved score 4, while 82% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score. This suggests that the ultrasound technique for catheterization of IJV decreased overall complications and improved the success rate. In group (B), there were 70% of patients in the landmark group who achieved score 5, while 49% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score which proposes that the landmark technique might be deceptively better than the ultrasound technique for catheterization of SV. This could be because the time required for catheterization of SV by the ultrasound technique was longer than that in the landmark technique. Overall complications of 15% with the landmark technique vs. 2% with ultrasound guidance in this group of patients are not only statistically significant but also increase morbidity and mortality with a highly invasive procedure. Complications and their incidences are by far more significant than seconds of time. Our results suggest that the ultrasound technique could decrease the incidence of overall complications, but it is time-consuming in group (B). These results support the validity of our new scoring system. Conclusion We suggest a new scoring system for CVC insertion that can be used for evaluation of both the technique and the operator. It can evaluate the performance of junior staff and follow their progress. It can be applied in the medical and critical care practice as well as the quality management privileges and protocols.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2020 \",\"pages\":\"8156801\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/8156801\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8156801\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8156801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:目前,还没有方法来评估中心静脉导管的置入效果。我们提出了一种新的评分系统来评估技术和操作员,然后我们将其应用于地标和超声技术的比较,以评估其有效性。方法。400例患者随机分为颈内静脉组(A组)和锁骨下静脉组(B组)。两组均采用地标技术和超声引导,各100例。结果:在A组中,路标组有20%的患者达到4分,超声组有82%的患者达到4分。这表明超声技术用于IJV置管减少了总体并发症,提高了成功率。在(B)组中,标记组中有70%的患者达到了5分,而超声组中有49%的患者达到了相同的分数,这表明标记技术可能比超声技术在SV置管方面具有欺骗性。这可能是因为超声技术对SV的置管时间比地标技术要长。在这组患者中,里程碑式技术的总并发症为15%,超声引导为2%,这不仅具有统计学意义,而且还增加了高侵入性手术的发病率和死亡率。并发症及其发生率远比几秒钟的时间更重要。我们的研究结果表明,超声技术可以降低总体并发症的发生率,但在B组中耗时较长。这些结果支持了我们新的评分系统的有效性。结论:我们提出了一种新的CVC插入评分系统,可用于评估技术和操作人员。它可以评估初级员工的绩效并跟踪他们的进步。它可以应用于医疗和危重病护理实践以及质量管理特权和协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Central Venous Catheter Insertion: A Scoring System for Evaluation of Both the Procedure and the Operator (CVCI Score/Gaber Score).
Introduction Currently, there is no method to assess the performance while inserting a central venous catheter. We suggest a new scoring system for evaluation of both the technique as well as the operator, and then we applied it for the comparison between the landmark and ultrasound techniques to assess its validity. Methods. Four hundred patients were divided into two equal groups: group (A): internal jugular vein (IJV) and group (B): subclavian vein (SV). The landmark technique and the ultrasound guidance were used equally (100 patients for each) in both groups. Results In group (A), 20% of patients in the landmark group achieved score 4, while 82% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score. This suggests that the ultrasound technique for catheterization of IJV decreased overall complications and improved the success rate. In group (B), there were 70% of patients in the landmark group who achieved score 5, while 49% of patients in the ultrasound group achieved the same score which proposes that the landmark technique might be deceptively better than the ultrasound technique for catheterization of SV. This could be because the time required for catheterization of SV by the ultrasound technique was longer than that in the landmark technique. Overall complications of 15% with the landmark technique vs. 2% with ultrasound guidance in this group of patients are not only statistically significant but also increase morbidity and mortality with a highly invasive procedure. Complications and their incidences are by far more significant than seconds of time. Our results suggest that the ultrasound technique could decrease the incidence of overall complications, but it is time-consuming in group (B). These results support the validity of our new scoring system. Conclusion We suggest a new scoring system for CVC insertion that can be used for evaluation of both the technique and the operator. It can evaluate the performance of junior staff and follow their progress. It can be applied in the medical and critical care practice as well as the quality management privileges and protocols.
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
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Hemodynamic Management and Postoperative Outcomes After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study. Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Assessment of Satisfaction Levels Among Families of Intensive Care Unit Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Serum Concentration at 24 h With Intensive Beta-Lactam Therapy in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Prospective Study: Beta-Lactam Blood Levels in Sepsis. Assessing the Impact of Simulation-Based Learning on Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Critical Care Medicine.
×
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