A Crossover Study Comparing In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Approaches for Simulated Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Cannulation on Phantom Models by Anaesthesiology Trainees
Two Approaches of Simulated Central Vein Cannulation
Vol. 14 No. 1 : 2019 (135-144)
Abstract
This prospective crossover study compared the incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture between two approaches during ultrasound-guided simulated central venous cannulation by anaesthesiology trainees. Each phantom model, simulating a central vein and artery, was cannulated by 37 anaesthesiology trainees under ultrasound-guidance using the in-plane approach (IPA) and out-of-plane approach (OPA). Total procedural time and the time taken from starting image scanning until commencing puncture, was recorded. The number of attempts required to achieve successful venous cannulation was noted. Finally, the models were examined for posterior venous wall and arterial puncture. Total procedural time was shorter with the OPA (26.5 vs 50.3 seconds, p=0.001). The time taken from starting image scanning until commencing puncture was shorter for the OPA (2.2 vs 12.3 seconds, p<0.0001). The IPA resulted in significantly more attempts for cannulation. Twenty and eleven participants were successful within the first pass using the OPA and IPA, respectively (p=0.034). There was no difference in the incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture between these two techniques. The OPA resulted in less arterial puncture compared to the IPA (2 vs 9, p=0.022). The incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture between the IPA and OPA during ultrasound-guided simulated central venous cannulation by anaesthesiology trainees was comparable.
Keywords :
in-plane,
out-of-plane,
simulation,
trainee,
ultrasound-guided cannulation,
Correspondance Address
Dr. Muhammad Maaya. Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: +603-9145 7359 Email: muhammad@ppukm.ukm.edu.my/ mm0427@gmail.com
References
Alsalamah, A., Campo, R., Tanos, V., Grimbizis, G., Van Belle, Y., Hood, K., Pugh, N., Amso, N.. 2017. Face and content validity of the virtual reality simulator ‘ScanTrainer®’. Gynecol Surg 14(1): 18.
Ball, R.D., Scouras, N.E., Orebaugh, S., Wilde, J., Sakai, T. 2012. Randomized, prospective, observational simulation study comparing residents’ needle-guided vs free-hand ultrasound techniques for central venous catheter access. Br J Anaesth 108(1): 72-9.
Blaivas, M., Adhikari, S. 2009. An unseen danger: frequency of posterior vessel wall penetration by needles during attempts to place internal jugular vein central catheters using ultrasound guidance. Crit Care Med 37(8): 2345-9.
Blaivas, M., Brannam, L., Fernandez, E. 2003. Short-axis versus long-axis approaches for teaching ultrasound-guided vascular access on a new inanimate model. Acad Emerg Med 10(12): 1307-11.
Caffery, T., Jagneaux, T., Jones, G.N., Stopa, E., Freeman, N., Quin, C.C., Long, A.C., Zatarain, L., Musso, M.W. 2018. Residents’ preference and performance of three techniques for ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation after simulation training. Oschner J 18(2): 146-50
Collins, G.B., Fanou, E-M., Young, J., Bhogal, P. 2013. A comparison of free-hand vs laser-guided long-axis ultrasound techniques in novice users. Br J Radiol 86(1029): 20130026.
Hind, D., Calvert, N., McWilliams, R., Davidson, A., Paisley, S., Beverley, C., Thomas, S. 2003. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 327(7411): 361.
Lamperti, M., Bodenham, A.R., Pittiruti. M., Blaivas, M., Augoustides, J.G., Elbarbary, M., Pirotte, T., Karakitsos, D., LeDonne, J., Doniger, S., Scoppettuolo, G., Feller-Kopman, D., Schummer, W., Biffi, R., Desruennes, E., Melniker, L.A., Verghese, S.T. 2012. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 38(7): 1105-117.
McGee, D.C., Gould, M.K. 2003. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348(26): 1123-33.
Moon, C.H., Blehar, D., Shear, M.A., Uyehara, P., Gaspari, R.J., Arnold, J., Cukor, J. 2010. Incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture during ultrasound-guided vessel cannulation in a simulated model. Acad Emerg Med 17(10): 1138-41.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2002. Guidance on the use of ultrasound location devices for placing central venous catheters. Technol Apprais Guide [TA49] https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta49 [1 August 2015].
Troianos, C.A., Hartman, G.S., Glass, K.E., Skubas, N.J., Eberhardt, R.T., Walker, J.D., Reeves, S.T. 2012. Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: Recommendations of the American society of echocardiography and the society of cardiovascular anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 114(1): 46-72.
Vogel, J.A., Haukoos, J.S., Erickson, C.L., Liao, M.M., Theoret, J., Sanz, G.E., Kendall, J. 2015. Is long-axis view superior to short-axis view in ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization? Crit Care Med 43(4): 832-9.
Weiner, M.M., Geldard, P., Mittnacht, A.J.C. 2013. Ultrasound-guided vascular access: a comprehensive review. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 27(2): 345-60.
Wu, S., Ling, Q., Cao, L., Wang, J., Xu, M., Zeng, W.A. 2013. Real-time two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for central venous cannulation: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 118(2): 361-75.
