Cargando…

Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting

OBJECTIVES: Manual techniques of intravascular fluid administration are commonly used during paediatric resuscitation, although it is unclear which technique is most efficient in the hands of typical healthcare providers. We compared the rate of fluid administration achieved with the disconnect–reco...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cole, Evan T, Harvey, Greg, Urbanski, Sara, Foster, Gary, Thabane, Lehana, Parker, Melissa J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24993757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005028
_version_ 1782480776823046144
author Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Urbanski, Sara
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
author_facet Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Urbanski, Sara
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
author_sort Cole, Evan T
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Manual techniques of intravascular fluid administration are commonly used during paediatric resuscitation, although it is unclear which technique is most efficient in the hands of typical healthcare providers. We compared the rate of fluid administration achieved with the disconnect–reconnect and push–pull manual syringe techniques for paediatric fluid resuscitation in a simulated setting. METHODS: This study utilised a randomised crossover trial design and enrolled 16 consenting healthcare provider participants from a Canadian paediatric tertiary care centre. The study was conducted in a non-clinical setting using a model simulating a 15 kg child in decompensated shock. Participants administered 900 mL (60 mL/kg) of normal saline to the simulated patient using each of the two techniques under study. The primary outcome was the rate of fluid administration, as determined by two blinded independent video reviewers. We also collected participant demographic data and evaluated other secondary outcomes including total volume administered, number of catheter dislodgements, number of technical errors, and subjective and objective measures of provider fatigue. RESULTS: All 16 participants completed the trial. The mean (SD) rate of fluid administration (mL/s) was greater for the disconnect–reconnect technique at 1.77 (0.145) than it was for the push–pull technique at 1.62 (0.226), with a mean difference of 0.15 (95% CI 0.055 to 0.251; p=0.005). There was no difference in mean volume administered (p=0.778) or participant self-reported fatigue (p=0.736) between techniques. No catheter dislodgement events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The disconnect–reconnect technique allowed for the fastest rate of fluid administration, suggesting that use of this technique may be preferable in situations requiring rapid resuscitation. These findings may help to inform future iterations of paediatric resuscitation guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01774214] prior to enrolling the first participant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4091513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40915132014-07-11 Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting Cole, Evan T Harvey, Greg Urbanski, Sara Foster, Gary Thabane, Lehana Parker, Melissa J BMJ Open Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVES: Manual techniques of intravascular fluid administration are commonly used during paediatric resuscitation, although it is unclear which technique is most efficient in the hands of typical healthcare providers. We compared the rate of fluid administration achieved with the disconnect–reconnect and push–pull manual syringe techniques for paediatric fluid resuscitation in a simulated setting. METHODS: This study utilised a randomised crossover trial design and enrolled 16 consenting healthcare provider participants from a Canadian paediatric tertiary care centre. The study was conducted in a non-clinical setting using a model simulating a 15 kg child in decompensated shock. Participants administered 900 mL (60 mL/kg) of normal saline to the simulated patient using each of the two techniques under study. The primary outcome was the rate of fluid administration, as determined by two blinded independent video reviewers. We also collected participant demographic data and evaluated other secondary outcomes including total volume administered, number of catheter dislodgements, number of technical errors, and subjective and objective measures of provider fatigue. RESULTS: All 16 participants completed the trial. The mean (SD) rate of fluid administration (mL/s) was greater for the disconnect–reconnect technique at 1.77 (0.145) than it was for the push–pull technique at 1.62 (0.226), with a mean difference of 0.15 (95% CI 0.055 to 0.251; p=0.005). There was no difference in mean volume administered (p=0.778) or participant self-reported fatigue (p=0.736) between techniques. No catheter dislodgement events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The disconnect–reconnect technique allowed for the fastest rate of fluid administration, suggesting that use of this technique may be preferable in situations requiring rapid resuscitation. These findings may help to inform future iterations of paediatric resuscitation guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01774214] prior to enrolling the first participant. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4091513/ /pubmed/24993757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005028 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 in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Emergency Medicine
Cole, Evan T
Harvey, Greg
Urbanski, Sara
Foster, Gary
Thabane, Lehana
Parker, Melissa J
Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title_full Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title_fullStr Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title_full_unstemmed Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title_short Rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
title_sort rapid paediatric fluid resuscitation: a randomised controlled trial comparing the efficiency of two provider-endorsed manual paediatric fluid resuscitation techniques in a simulated setting
topic Emergency Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24993757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005028
work_keys_str_mv AT coleevant rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting
AT harveygreg rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting
AT urbanskisara rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting
AT fostergary rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting
AT thabanelehana rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting
AT parkermelissaj rapidpaediatricfluidresuscitationarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparingtheefficiencyoftwoproviderendorsedmanualpaediatricfluidresuscitationtechniquesinasimulatedsetting