| Literature DB >> 30505458 |
Monica L Schoch1, Judy Currey1,2, Liliana Orellana3, Paul N Bennett1,2,4, Vicki Smith5, Alison M Hutchinson1,2,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been used in various vascular access contexts; however, to date, it has not been widely adopted in haemodialysis clinics. People with end-stage kidney disease receiving haemodialysis require an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), arteriovenous graft (AVG), or central venous access device (CVAD) in order to access their blood for therapy/treatment. Cannulation issues, such as haematoma and extravasation, related to AVFs and AVGs are common. This pilot and feasibility study will assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial aimed at evaluating whether POCUS-guided cannulation results in more successful and accurate AVF needle placement than the standard practice of blind cannulation.Entities:
Keywords: Cannulation; Crossover; Haemodialysis; Point of care; Random; Renal; Ultrasound; Vascular access
Year: 2018 PMID: 30505458 PMCID: PMC6260680 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-018-0370-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
SPIRIT figure illustrating study events and timings.
-t prior to allocation; t time zero, at allocation; t time 1, after the first ultrasound cannulation; t time 2, after each cannulation.
Baseline data collected at enrolment
| Nurses | Patients |
|---|---|
| Age | Age |
| Sex | Sex |
| Dominant hand | Type of AVF |
| Years of experience in dialysis | Comorbidities |
| Years of experience with cannulation | Other relevant medical history |
| Years of experience with ultrasound | Time on haemodialysis |
| Employment status (full- or part-time) | Frequency of haemodialysis |
| Completed level of education | Date of AVF creation and first cannulation |
| Completion of formal or informal ultrasound training | |
| Frequency of use of ultrasound use to assess AVFs | |
| Frequency of use of ultrasound to guide cannulation | |
| Circumstance that prompt to use the ultrasound for guidance |
Example of patient and nurse allocation to condition
| Nurse 1 | Nurse 2 | Nurse 3 | Nurse 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyad | First cond | Dyad | First cond | Dyad | First cond | Dyad | First cond | |
| Patient 1 | 1 | Blind | 11 | POCUS | 21 | Blind | 31 | Blind |
| Patient 2 | 2 | Blind | 12 | Blind | 22 | POCUS | 32 | POCUS |
| Patient 3 | 3 | Blind | 13 | POCUS | 23 | POCUS | 33 | POCUS |
| Patient 4 | 4 | POCUS | 14 | POCUS | 24 | Blind | 34 | Blind |
| Patient 5 | 5 | Blind | 15 | Blind | 25 | POCUS | 35 | POCUS |
| Patient 6 | 6 | POCUS | 16 | POCUS | 26 | Blind | 36 | POCUS |
| Patient 7 | 7 | POCUS | 17 | POCUS | 27 | POCUS | 37 | Blind |
| Patient 8 | 8 | POCUS | 18 | Blind | 28 | Blind | 38 | Blind |
| Patient 9 | 9 | POCUS | 19 | Blind | 29 | Blind | 39 | POCUS |
| Patient 10 | 10 | Blind | 20 | Blind | 30 | POCUS | 40 | Blind |
Example of patient and nurse condition and data collection sheet
| Nurse 1 | Nurse 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient | Dyad | First meeting (condition from randomisation table) | Second meeting (opposite condition) | Dyad | First meeting (condition from randomisation table) | Second meeting (opposite condition) |
| 1 | 1 | Blind | POCUS | 11 | POCUS | Blind |
| 20/4/18 | 6/6/18 | 4/4/18 | 11/4/18 | |||
| 2 | 2 | Blind | POCUS | 12 | Blind | POCUS |
| 5/10/18 | 17/12/18 | 13/7/18 | 4/8/18 | |||
Data collected during the study
| Nurses | Patients | Dialysis machine |
|---|---|---|
| Sitting or standing to cannulate | Patient arm position | Pump speed (Qb) |
| Use of gloves (sterile or non-sterile) | Patient-reported pain score (scales 1–10) each needle | Venous and arterial line pressures |
| Ultrasound probe held longitudinal or transverse | Patient-reported perception of the cannulation experience (scales 1–10) | Any initial pressure alarms |
| Cannulate in one or two motions | Patient additional comments re-cannulation or ultrasound process | |
| Needle manipulation once inserted | Ultrasound images in both transverse and longitudinal planes | |
| Time from tourniquet application until machine started | ||
| Miscannulations (needle removed and re-sited) | ||
| Nurse-reported perceptions of the use of ultrasound |
Fig. 1The procedure for assessment of needle placement
Feasibility assessments
| Tool | Assessing | Participants | Time period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structured observational tool | Implementation: participation rates (number of participating patients or nurses related to number of eligible patients or nurses). Overall recruitment, retention, and questionnaire completion rates | Patients | Throughout the data collection phase |
| Patient satisfaction survey | Acceptability: patient satisfaction with cannulation technique, use of point-of-care ultrasound | Patients | After each cannulation |
| Nurse satisfaction survey | Acceptability: nurse satisfaction with cannulation technique and use of point-of-care ultrasound | Nurses | After first cannulation with ultrasound |
| Researcher study notes (diary) | Implementation: protocol adherence by nurses; issues verbalised by nurses, other staff, or patients regarding the study protocol, reasons for drop-out for both patients and nurses | Patients and nurses | Throughout data collection phase |
| Image assessor measurement survey | Implementation: image assessor’s confidence in accuracy of measurements | Image assessor | Following completion of all needle placement measurements |
| Structured interview or focus group | Acceptability, demand, implementation, and integration: suitability, usability, barriers and facilitators, sustainability | Nurses | Following completion of the cannulation data collection phase |