Literature DB >> 26159436

Ultrasound guidance versus direct palpation for radial artery catheterization by expert operators: a randomized trial among Canadian cardiac anesthesiologists.

Cheryl Peters1,2, Stephan K W Schwarz3,4, Cynthia H Yarnold1,2, Katarina Kojic1,2, Stefan Kojic1,2, Stephen J Head1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The use of ultrasound (US) for radial arterial catheterization has been reported to result in faster insertion times with fewer complications when compared with traditional direct palpation (DP). We sought to determine if this applies to expert operators and tested the hypothesis that, among cardiac anesthesiologists, US-guided insertion similarly results in faster insertion times as well as fewer re-directs, attempts, and complications.
METHODS: Following Research Ethics Board Approval, we conducted a randomized clinical trial in 125 patients scheduled for cardiac surgery at a single tertiary/quaternary care centre. Patients were randomized to either US- or DP-guided radial artery catheterization by attending cardiac anesthesiologists. The primary endpoint was time to catheter placement. Secondary endpoints included the number of attempts and re-directs as well as the failure rate.
RESULTS: There were no differences between the DP- (n = 62) vs US-guided (n = 63) groups in median [interquartile range] time to placement (104 [76-212] sec vs 104 [68-270] sec, respectively; P = 0.66), number of re-directs (2 [0-6] vs 3 [1-5], respectively; P = 0.82), or number of attempts (1 [1-2] vs 1 [1-2], respectively; P = 0.08). The first-attempt success rate was 56.4% in the DP group and 71.4 % in the US group (P = 0.10). Failure rate and hematoma rate in the DP group were 21.0% and 22.6%, respectively, compared with 12.7% and 11.1% in the US group (P = 0.24 and 0.10, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Among experienced cardiac anesthesiologists, the use of US to facilitate radial arterial catheterization did not affect insertion times, the number of re-directs, or the number of attempts when compared with DP. Ultrasound use had no significant effects on the rates of success on first attempt, failure, or hematoma formation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02118441.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26159436     DOI: 10.1007/s12630-015-0426-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  6 in total

Review 1.  Ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.

Authors:  Ronald Lg Flumignan; Virginia Fm Trevisani; Renato D Lopes; Jose Cc Baptista-Silva; Carolina Dq Flumignan; Luis Cu Nakano
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-10-12

2.  Prospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Palpation Techniques for Arterial Line Placement by Residents in a Teaching Institution.

Authors:  Yar Luan Yeap; John W Wolfe; Jennifer Stewart; Kevin M Backfish
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2019-04

3.  Modification of intravenous cannula for arterial line insertion: Simple yet effective technique.

Authors:  Ashutosh Kaushal; Ashish Bindra; Shalendra Singh; Zakia Saeed
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2018-05

4.  Simulation-based training using a vessel phantom effectively improved first attempt success and dynamic needle-tip positioning ability for ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation in real patients: An assessor-blinded randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Eun Jung Oh; Jong-Hwan Lee; Eun Jin Kwon; Jeong Jin Min
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of Success Rates of Different Methods of Ultrasound-Guided Radial Artery Cannulation (Short-Axis and Long-Axis Methods) Against the Traditional Palpatory Method: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Authors:  Mounica Rajasekar; Senthilkumar Sukumar; Venkatesh Selvaraj
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2022-02

6.  Application of the dynamic needle tip positioning method for ultrasound-guided arterial catheterization in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jae-Geum Shim; Eun A Cho; Tae-Ryun Gahng; Jiyeon Park; Eun Kyung Lee; Eun Jung Oh; Jin Hee Ahn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 3.752

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.