Cargando…

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric shock is a life-threatening condition with many possible causes and a global impact. Current resuscitation guidelines require rapid fluid administration as a cornerstone of paediatric shock management. However, little evidence is available to inform clinicians how to most ef...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cole, Evan T, Harvey, Greg, Foster, Gary, Thabane, Lehana, Parker, Melissa J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23524045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002754
_version_ 1782264692436107264
author Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
author_facet Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
author_sort Cole, Evan T
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Paediatric shock is a life-threatening condition with many possible causes and a global impact. Current resuscitation guidelines require rapid fluid administration as a cornerstone of paediatric shock management. However, little evidence is available to inform clinicians how to most effectively perform rapid fluid administration where this is clinically required, resulting in suboptimal knowledge translation of current resuscitation guidelines into clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine which of the two commonly used techniques for paediatric fluid resuscitation (disconnect–reconnect technique and push–pull technique) yields a higher fluid administration rate in a simulated clinical scenario. Secondary objectives include determination of catheter dislodgement rates, subjective and objective measures of provider fatiguability and descriptive information regarding any technical issues encountered with performance of each method under the study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will utilise a randomised crossover trial design. Participants will include consenting healthcare providers from McMaster Children's Hospital. Each participant will administer 900 ml (60 ml/kg) of normal saline to a simulated 15 kg infant as quickly as possible on two separate occasions using the manual fluid administration techniques under the study. The primary outcome, rate of fluid administration, will be evaluated using a paired two-tailed Student t test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: These will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01774214
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3612816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36128162013-07-08 Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques Cole, Evan T Harvey, Greg Foster, Gary Thabane, Lehana Parker, Melissa J BMJ Open Paediatrics INTRODUCTION: Paediatric shock is a life-threatening condition with many possible causes and a global impact. Current resuscitation guidelines require rapid fluid administration as a cornerstone of paediatric shock management. However, little evidence is available to inform clinicians how to most effectively perform rapid fluid administration where this is clinically required, resulting in suboptimal knowledge translation of current resuscitation guidelines into clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine which of the two commonly used techniques for paediatric fluid resuscitation (disconnect–reconnect technique and push–pull technique) yields a higher fluid administration rate in a simulated clinical scenario. Secondary objectives include determination of catheter dislodgement rates, subjective and objective measures of provider fatiguability and descriptive information regarding any technical issues encountered with performance of each method under the study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will utilise a randomised crossover trial design. Participants will include consenting healthcare providers from McMaster Children's Hospital. Each participant will administer 900 ml (60 ml/kg) of normal saline to a simulated 15 kg infant as quickly as possible on two separate occasions using the manual fluid administration techniques under the study. The primary outcome, rate of fluid administration, will be evaluated using a paired two-tailed Student t test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. RESULTS: These will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Protocol Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01774214 BMJ Publishing Group 2013-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3612816/ /pubmed/23524045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002754 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution non-commercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Paediatrics
Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title_full Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title_fullStr Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title_full_unstemmed Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title_short Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
title_sort study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques
topic Paediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23524045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002754
work_keys_str_mv AT coleevant studyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniques
AT harveygreg studyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniques
AT fostergary studyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniques
AT thabanelehana studyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniques
AT parkermelissaj studyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniques