重症监护室实时超声引导与标志性锁骨下静脉导管插入术:一项前瞻性随机研究

Sujit Kshirsagar, S. Naik, Anandkumar Pande, P. Bhalerao, Chandraprabhu Birnale, Shivprasad Thorve
{"title":"重症监护室实时超声引导与标志性锁骨下静脉导管插入术:一项前瞻性随机研究","authors":"Sujit Kshirsagar, S. Naik, Anandkumar Pande, P. Bhalerao, Chandraprabhu Birnale, Shivprasad Thorve","doi":"10.1097/EC9.0000000000000091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background The subclavian vein (SCV) is an alternative to the internal jugular vein when it is difficult to locate, such as in patients with hypovolemia or obesity. Ultrasonography (USG) guidance for SVC cannulation has evolved, resulting in fewer complications and higher first-pass success rates. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of SCV cannulation with USG- and landmark-guided techniques. Methods In this prospective randomized interventional controlled study, 80 patients admitted to the intensive care unit between July 2022 and October 2022 were randomly assigned to the landmark method group (LM group) and USG group. In the LM group, SCV cannulation was performed using the traditional landmark technique, whereas in the USG group, it was performed using USG guidance. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the ease of subclavian central venous cannulation in critically ill patients using the 2 techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare the success rate of cannulation between these 2 techniques, evaluate the number of attempts, assess cannulation failure, and assess mechanical complications. Results The first-pass success rates were 70% and 92.5% in the LM and USG groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The average numbers of attempts in the LM and USG groups were 1.275 (±0.520) and 1.075 (±0.266), respectively (P = 0.034). The average procedure durations were 7.45 (±1.10) and 8 (±0.933) minutes in the LM and USG groups (P = 0.018), respectively. The rates of complications in both groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion The USG guidance for SCV cannulation has an advantage over landmark-guided methods in a critical care setting. The SCV is a good alternative to internal jugular vein cannulation. The average time to cannulation was longer in the USG group than in the LM group, which can decrease with the frequent use of USG and increasing operator experience. Clinical trials This study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI Trial No. CTRI/2022/07/043694, dated May 7, 2022).","PeriodicalId":72895,"journal":{"name":"Emergency and critical care medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-time ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided subclavian vein catheterization in the intensive care unit: a prospective randomized study\",\"authors\":\"Sujit Kshirsagar, S. Naik, Anandkumar Pande, P. Bhalerao, Chandraprabhu Birnale, Shivprasad Thorve\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EC9.0000000000000091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background The subclavian vein (SCV) is an alternative to the internal jugular vein when it is difficult to locate, such as in patients with hypovolemia or obesity. Ultrasonography (USG) guidance for SVC cannulation has evolved, resulting in fewer complications and higher first-pass success rates. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of SCV cannulation with USG- and landmark-guided techniques. Methods In this prospective randomized interventional controlled study, 80 patients admitted to the intensive care unit between July 2022 and October 2022 were randomly assigned to the landmark method group (LM group) and USG group. In the LM group, SCV cannulation was performed using the traditional landmark technique, whereas in the USG group, it was performed using USG guidance. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the ease of subclavian central venous cannulation in critically ill patients using the 2 techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare the success rate of cannulation between these 2 techniques, evaluate the number of attempts, assess cannulation failure, and assess mechanical complications. Results The first-pass success rates were 70% and 92.5% in the LM and USG groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The average numbers of attempts in the LM and USG groups were 1.275 (±0.520) and 1.075 (±0.266), respectively (P = 0.034). The average procedure durations were 7.45 (±1.10) and 8 (±0.933) minutes in the LM and USG groups (P = 0.018), respectively. The rates of complications in both groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion The USG guidance for SCV cannulation has an advantage over landmark-guided methods in a critical care setting. The SCV is a good alternative to internal jugular vein cannulation. The average time to cannulation was longer in the USG group than in the LM group, which can decrease with the frequent use of USG and increasing operator experience. Clinical trials This study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI Trial No. CTRI/2022/07/043694, dated May 7, 2022).\",\"PeriodicalId\":72895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency and critical care medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency and critical care medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EC9.0000000000000091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EC9.0000000000000091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景锁骨下静脉(SCV)是颈内静脉难以定位时的替代选择,如低血容量或肥胖患者。超声(USG)指导SVC插管的发展,导致更少的并发症和更高的首次通过成功率。本研究旨在比较SCV插管与USG和地标引导技术的有效性和安全性。方法在这项前瞻性随机介入对照研究中,将2022年7月至2022年10月入住重症监护病房的80例患者随机分为landmark method组(LM组)和USG组。LM组SCV插管采用传统地标技术,USG组SCV插管采用USG引导。本研究的主要目的是评估使用这两种技术在危重患者锁骨下中心静脉插管的便利性。次要目的是比较这两种技术的插管成功率、评估插管次数、评估插管失败和评估机械并发症。结果LM组和USG组一次通过成功率分别为70%和92.5% (P < 0.001)。LM组和USG组的平均尝试次数分别为1.275次(±0.520次)和1.075次(±0.266次)(P = 0.034)。LM组和USG组的平均手术时间分别为7.45(±1.10)和8(±0.933)分钟(P = 0.018)。两组并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义。结论在重症监护环境下,USG引导SCV插管比地标引导方法更有优势。SCV是颈内静脉插管的一个很好的选择。USG组插管平均时间较LM组长,但随USG使用频率的增加和操作经验的增加,插管平均时间会缩短。本研究已在印度临床试验注册中心注册(CTRI试验号:CTRI/2022/07/043694,日期为2022年5月7日)。
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
Real-time ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided subclavian vein catheterization in the intensive care unit: a prospective randomized study
Abstract Background The subclavian vein (SCV) is an alternative to the internal jugular vein when it is difficult to locate, such as in patients with hypovolemia or obesity. Ultrasonography (USG) guidance for SVC cannulation has evolved, resulting in fewer complications and higher first-pass success rates. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of SCV cannulation with USG- and landmark-guided techniques. Methods In this prospective randomized interventional controlled study, 80 patients admitted to the intensive care unit between July 2022 and October 2022 were randomly assigned to the landmark method group (LM group) and USG group. In the LM group, SCV cannulation was performed using the traditional landmark technique, whereas in the USG group, it was performed using USG guidance. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the ease of subclavian central venous cannulation in critically ill patients using the 2 techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare the success rate of cannulation between these 2 techniques, evaluate the number of attempts, assess cannulation failure, and assess mechanical complications. Results The first-pass success rates were 70% and 92.5% in the LM and USG groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The average numbers of attempts in the LM and USG groups were 1.275 (±0.520) and 1.075 (±0.266), respectively (P = 0.034). The average procedure durations were 7.45 (±1.10) and 8 (±0.933) minutes in the LM and USG groups (P = 0.018), respectively. The rates of complications in both groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion The USG guidance for SCV cannulation has an advantage over landmark-guided methods in a critical care setting. The SCV is a good alternative to internal jugular vein cannulation. The average time to cannulation was longer in the USG group than in the LM group, which can decrease with the frequent use of USG and increasing operator experience. Clinical trials This study was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI Trial No. CTRI/2022/07/043694, dated May 7, 2022).
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical analysis of patients with deep sternal wound infection-induced sepsis: a retrospective cohort study Exploring the effects of coronary artery disease as a preexisting comorbidity on mortality in hospitalized septic patients: a retrospective observation study An unusual anterior mitral leaflet perforation in a patient with no infective endocarditis: a case report Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia in critically ill patients: does bedside laparoscopy offer any real benefit? Congestive heart failure and sepsis a retrospective study of hospitalization outcomes from a rural hospital in Southwest Missouri: Erratum
×
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