Cargando…

Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) vascular guidance is traditionally performed in transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) axes, each with drawbacks. We hypothesized that the introduction of a novel oblique (O) approach would improve the success of US-guided peripheral venous access. We examined emergency phys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tassone, Heather M, Tayal, Vivek S, Weekes, Anthony J, Garner, Craymon L, Norton, James H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22871109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2036-7902-4-14
_version_ 1782242996867039232
author Tassone, Heather M
Tayal, Vivek S
Weekes, Anthony J
Garner, Craymon L
Norton, James H
author_facet Tassone, Heather M
Tayal, Vivek S
Weekes, Anthony J
Garner, Craymon L
Norton, James H
author_sort Tassone, Heather M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) vascular guidance is traditionally performed in transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) axes, each with drawbacks. We hypothesized that the introduction of a novel oblique (O) approach would improve the success of US-guided peripheral venous access. We examined emergency physician (EP) performance using the O approach in a gel US phantom. METHODS: In a prospective, case control study, EPs were enrolled from four levels of physician experience including postgraduate years one to three (PGY1, PGY2, PGY3) and attending physicians. After a brief training session, each participant attempted vessel aspiration using a linear probe in T, L, and O axes on a gel US phantom. Time to aspiration and number of attempts to aspiration were recorded. The approach order was randomized, and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Twenty-four physicians participated. The first-attempt success rate was lower for O, 45.83%, versus 70.83% for T (p = 0.03) and 83.33% for L (p = 0.01). The average time to aspiration was 12.5 s (O) compared with 9.47 s (T) and 9.74 s (L), respectively. There were no significant differences between all four groups in regard to total amount of time and number of aspiration attempts; however, a trend appeared revealing that PGY3 and attending physicians tended to aspirate in less time and by fewer attempts in all three orientations when compared with the PGY2 and PGY1 physicians. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, US-guided simulated peripheral venous access using a phantom gel model in a mixed user group showed that the novel oblique approach was not initially more successful versus T and L techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3439390
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34393902012-09-17 Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model Tassone, Heather M Tayal, Vivek S Weekes, Anthony J Garner, Craymon L Norton, James H Crit Ultrasound J Original Article BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US) vascular guidance is traditionally performed in transverse (T) and longitudinal (L) axes, each with drawbacks. We hypothesized that the introduction of a novel oblique (O) approach would improve the success of US-guided peripheral venous access. We examined emergency physician (EP) performance using the O approach in a gel US phantom. METHODS: In a prospective, case control study, EPs were enrolled from four levels of physician experience including postgraduate years one to three (PGY1, PGY2, PGY3) and attending physicians. After a brief training session, each participant attempted vessel aspiration using a linear probe in T, L, and O axes on a gel US phantom. Time to aspiration and number of attempts to aspiration were recorded. The approach order was randomized, and descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Twenty-four physicians participated. The first-attempt success rate was lower for O, 45.83%, versus 70.83% for T (p = 0.03) and 83.33% for L (p = 0.01). The average time to aspiration was 12.5 s (O) compared with 9.47 s (T) and 9.74 s (L), respectively. There were no significant differences between all four groups in regard to total amount of time and number of aspiration attempts; however, a trend appeared revealing that PGY3 and attending physicians tended to aspirate in less time and by fewer attempts in all three orientations when compared with the PGY2 and PGY1 physicians. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, US-guided simulated peripheral venous access using a phantom gel model in a mixed user group showed that the novel oblique approach was not initially more successful versus T and L techniques. Springer 2012-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3439390/ /pubmed/22871109 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2036-7902-4-14 Text en Copyright ©2012 Tassone et al.; licensee Springer. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tassone, Heather M
Tayal, Vivek S
Weekes, Anthony J
Garner, Craymon L
Norton, James H
Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title_full Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title_fullStr Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title_full_unstemmed Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title_short Ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
title_sort ultrasound-guided oblique approach for peripheral venous access in a phantom model
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439390/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22871109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2036-7902-4-14
work_keys_str_mv AT tassoneheatherm ultrasoundguidedobliqueapproachforperipheralvenousaccessinaphantommodel
AT tayalviveks ultrasoundguidedobliqueapproachforperipheralvenousaccessinaphantommodel
AT weekesanthonyj ultrasoundguidedobliqueapproachforperipheralvenousaccessinaphantommodel
AT garnercraymonl ultrasoundguidedobliqueapproachforperipheralvenousaccessinaphantommodel
AT nortonjamesh ultrasoundguidedobliqueapproachforperipheralvenousaccessinaphantommodel