Ultrasonography- guided radial artery catheterization is superior compared with the traditional palpation technique
Ultrasonography- guided radial artery catheterization is superior compared with the traditional palpation technique
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/aas.12299
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Sloth, E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hansen, M. A.;Juhl-Olsen, P.;Sloth, E.
背景桡动脉导管插入术在诊断和介入治疗中越来越受欢迎。触诊技术被广泛用于该过程，但超声检查已被证明可以增加导管插入的成功率。最近描述的超声检查技术被称为“动态针尖定位”。我们的目的是比较传统的触诊技术和动态针尖定位技术方面的临床相关endpoints.MethodsThe研究进行了随机，病人盲，交叉研究。患者采用两种技术进行双侧桡动脉插管。研究的主要终点是针操作时间。额外的终点是（1）皮肤穿孔的数量，（2）针对血管的尝试次数，（3）在第一次尝试放置的导管数量和（4）使用的导管数量。中位操作时间[32 s（范围11- 96 s）vs. 39 s（范围9- 575 s），P=0.525]无显著差异，尽管动态针尖定位组的方差较低（P
BackgroundRadial artery catheterization is gaining popularity for diagnostic and interventional procedures. Palpation technique is widely used for the procedure, but ultrasonography has been shown to increase catheterization success. A recently described ultrasonography technique is termed dynamic needle tip positioning'. We aimed to compare the traditional palpation technique and dynamic needle tip positioning technique in regard to clinically relevant end points.MethodsThe study was conducted as a randomized, patient-blinded, crossover study. Patients underwent bilateral radial artery catheterization using both techniques. The primary end point of the study was needle manipulation time. Additional end points were (1) the number of skin perforations, (2) the number of attempts targeting the vessel, (3) the number of catheters placed in first attempt and (4) the number of catheters used.ResultsForty patients were analyzed. There was no significant difference in median needle manipulation time [32s (range 11-96s) vs. 39s (range 9-575s), P=0.525], although the variance was lower in the dynamic needle tip positioning group (P