Ultrasound guidance in difficult radial artery puncture for blood gas analysis: A prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Aged
Arteries
Blood Gas Analysis
Blood Specimen Collection
/ adverse effects
Catheterization, Peripheral
/ methods
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pain
/ etiology
Pain Measurement
Patient Satisfaction
Prospective Studies
Punctures
/ adverse effects
Radial Artery
/ diagnostic imaging
Risk
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography, Interventional
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
22
11
2018
accepted:
18
02
2019
entrez:
21
3
2019
pubmed:
21
3
2019
medline:
27
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ultrasound (US) guidance has yet to prove its applicability in radial arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) punctures. The main objective of our study was to compare the number of first-attempt successes (NFAS) for radial arterial puncture in difficult patients with or without US guidance. The Secondary aims were to compare the number of punctures (NOP), puncture time, and patient pain. In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients who required a radial ABGA and in whom the arterial puncture was assessed as difficult (because of non-palpable radial arteries or two previous puncture failures by a nurse) were assigned to the US group or no-US (NUS) group (procedure performed by a trained physician). Thirty-six patients were included in the US group and 37 in the NUS groups. The NFAS was 7 (19%) in the NUS group and 19 (53%) in the US group. The relative risk of success in the US group was 2.79 (95% CI,1.34 to 5.82), p = 0.01. In the NUS and US groups, respectively, the median NOP was 3 [2; 6] vs. 1 [1; 2], estimated difference -2.0 (95%CI, -3.4 to -0.6), p < 0.01; the respective puncture time was 3.1 [1.6; 5.4] vs. 1.4 [0.6; 3.1] min, estimated difference -1.45 (95%CI, -2.57 to -0.39), p = 0.01; the respective median patient pain was 6 [4; 8] vs. 2 [1; 4], estimated difference -4.0 (95%CI, -5.8 to -2.3); p < 0.01. US guidance by a trained physician significantly improves the rate of success in difficult radial ABGA patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound (US) guidance has yet to prove its applicability in radial arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) punctures. The main objective of our study was to compare the number of first-attempt successes (NFAS) for radial arterial puncture in difficult patients with or without US guidance. The Secondary aims were to compare the number of punctures (NOP), puncture time, and patient pain.
METHODS
In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients who required a radial ABGA and in whom the arterial puncture was assessed as difficult (because of non-palpable radial arteries or two previous puncture failures by a nurse) were assigned to the US group or no-US (NUS) group (procedure performed by a trained physician).
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients were included in the US group and 37 in the NUS groups. The NFAS was 7 (19%) in the NUS group and 19 (53%) in the US group. The relative risk of success in the US group was 2.79 (95% CI,1.34 to 5.82), p = 0.01. In the NUS and US groups, respectively, the median NOP was 3 [2; 6] vs. 1 [1; 2], estimated difference -2.0 (95%CI, -3.4 to -0.6), p < 0.01; the respective puncture time was 3.1 [1.6; 5.4] vs. 1.4 [0.6; 3.1] min, estimated difference -1.45 (95%CI, -2.57 to -0.39), p = 0.01; the respective median patient pain was 6 [4; 8] vs. 2 [1; 4], estimated difference -4.0 (95%CI, -5.8 to -2.3); p < 0.01.
CONCLUSION
US guidance by a trained physician significantly improves the rate of success in difficult radial ABGA patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30893349
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213683
pii: PONE-D-18-33208
pmc: PMC6426205
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0213683Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: XB declares a competing interest as an ultrasound teacher for GE (GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS ULTRASOUND) customers. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies and sharing data and materials. The other authors state they have no competing interests.
Références
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 May;19(5):525-34
pubmed: 22594356
Chest. 2013 Feb 1;143(2):532-538
pubmed: 23381318
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 25;10(9):e0139432
pubmed: 26407017
Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Oct;34(10):1950-1954
pubmed: 27422220
Injury. 2014 Apr;45(4):738-41
pubmed: 24314873
Clin Respir J. 2018 May;12(5):1849-1857
pubmed: 29193717
Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Nov;46(5):456-61
pubmed: 16271677
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Apr 11;9(7):660-70
pubmed: 27056303
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Nov;29(9):1194-7
pubmed: 20951527
Enferm Clin. 2018 Nov - Dec;28(6):359-364
pubmed: 29279250
J Clin Anesth. 2017 Feb;36:98-101
pubmed: 28183585
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Jan;43(1):140-141
pubmed: 27686360
J Anesth. 2017 Feb;31(1):89-94
pubmed: 27761661
Chest. 2017 Mar;151(3):579-585
pubmed: 27818327
Ann Emerg Med. 2015 May;65(5):618-9
pubmed: 25910767
Am Heart J. 2018 Oct;204:1-8
pubmed: 30077047
J Vasc Access. 2016 Jul 12;17(4):366-70
pubmed: 27312767
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 May;31(5):810-5
pubmed: 23535230
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Jul;68(1):10-8
pubmed: 26475248
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Feb;8(2):283-291
pubmed: 25596790
Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):166-79
pubmed: 26426094
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Dec;13(12):1275-9
pubmed: 17079789
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Dec;10(12):1307-11
pubmed: 14644780
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377
pubmed: 28101605
Chest. 1996 Dec;110(6):1443-5
pubmed: 8989058
BMJ. 2003 Aug 16;327(7411):361
pubmed: 12919984
J Evid Based Med. 2015 Nov;8(4):185-91
pubmed: 26779697
Anesth Analg. 2018 Jan;126(1):120-126
pubmed: 29135593
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb;9(2):e003129
pubmed: 26839392