Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, James
dc.contributor.authorCarnegie, Amadeus
dc.contributor.authorKendall, Richard
dc.contributor.authorMadan, Rajeev
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-05T11:05:13Z
dc.date.available2017-05-05T11:05:13Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-03
dc.identifier.citationCritical Ultrasound Journal. 2017 Apr 03;9(1):9
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/264075
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access may present an alternative to central or intraosseous access in patients with difficult peripheral veins. Using venepuncture of a phantom model as a proxy, we investigated whether novice ultrasound users should adopt a cross-sectional or longitudinal approach when learning to access peripheral veins under ultrasound guidance. This result would inform the development of a structured training method for this procedure. Methods We conducted a randomised controlled trial of 30 medical students. Subjects received 35 min of training, then attempted to aspirate 1 ml of synthetic blood from a deep vein in a training model under ultrasound guidance. Subjects attempted both the cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. Group 1 used cross-sectional first, followed by longitudinal. Group 2 used longitudinal first, then cross-sectional. We measured the time from first puncture of the model’s skin to aspiration of fluid, and the number of attempts required. Subjects also reported difficulty ratings for each approach. Paired sample t-tests were used for statistical analysis. Results The mean number of attempts was 1.13 using the cross-sectional approach, compared with 1.30 using the longitudinal approach (p = 0.17). Mean time to aspiration of fluid was 45.1 s using the cross-sectional approach and 52.8 s using the longitudinal approach (p = 0.43). The mean difficulty score out of 10 was 3.97 for the cross-sectional approach and 3.93 for the longitudinal approach (p = 0.95). Conclusions We found no significant difference in effectiveness between the cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches to ultrasound-guided venepuncture when performed on a model. We believe that both approaches should be included when teaching ultrasound-guided peripheral vascular access. To confirm which approach would be best in clinical practice, we advocate future testing of both approaches on patients.
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserveden
dc.rights.urihttps://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved/en
dc.titleA randomised crossover study to compare the cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches to ultrasound-guided peripheral venepuncture in a model
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2017-05-05T11:05:13Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.9436
pubs.declined2017-10-11T13:54:40.307+0100
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s13089-017-0064-1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record