BACKGROUND: Diagnostic or therapeutic paracentesis of ascites or pleural effusions is part of the daily routine on many hospital wards and in outpatient clinics. In Germany, paracentesis is usually performed with angiocaths. However, the therapeutic large volume paracentesis of ascites and paracentesis of pleural effusions with angiocaths is often cumbersome and quite often paracentesis fails, forcing the physician to repuncture. This is mainly due to the fact that angiocaths are not designed for such interventions. PATIENTS AND METHOD:45 patients with ascites or pleural effusions were treated with a new needle specially designed for paracentesis, or with an angiocath. The new paracentesis needle was compared with the angiocath needle under the following aspects: necessity and number of positional corrections of the needle, necessity of and reasons for repuncture, duration of puncture, flow capacity, subjective practicability of paracentesis and patient acceptance of the paracentesis needle. RESULTS: The paracentesis needle was superior to the angiocath in all investigated respects. Significantly, the paracentesis needle had a much higher success rate in the complete drainage than had the angiocath. CONCLUSION: The paracentesis needle was objectively superior as compared to the angiocath. It might help to avoid additional complications due to repuncture and it will increase the patients' comfort.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic or therapeutic paracentesis of ascites or pleural effusions is part of the daily routine on many hospital wards and in outpatient clinics. In Germany, paracentesis is usually performed with angiocaths. However, the therapeutic large volume paracentesis of ascites and paracentesis of pleural effusions with angiocaths is often cumbersome and quite often paracentesis fails, forcing the physician to repuncture. This is mainly due to the fact that angiocaths are not designed for such interventions. PATIENTS AND METHOD: 45 patients with ascites or pleural effusions were treated with a new needle specially designed for paracentesis, or with an angiocath. The new paracentesis needle was compared with the angiocath needle under the following aspects: necessity and number of positional corrections of the needle, necessity of and reasons for repuncture, duration of puncture, flow capacity, subjective practicability of paracentesis and patient acceptance of the paracentesis needle. RESULTS: The paracentesis needle was superior to the angiocath in all investigated respects. Significantly, the paracentesis needle had a much higher success rate in the complete drainage than had the angiocath. CONCLUSION: The paracentesis needle was objectively superior as compared to the angiocath. It might help to avoid additional complications due to repuncture and it will increase the patients' comfort.
Authors: Katharina Stratmann; Daniel Fitting; Stefan Zeuzem; Jörg Bojunga; Jonel Trebicka; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Georg Dultz Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 4.623