Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of atraumatic versus standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the ease of use of atraumatic needles with standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture and the incidence of headache after their use. DESIGN:Double blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Investigation ward of a neurology unit in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS:116 patients requiring elective diagnostic lumbar puncture. INTERVENTIONS:Standardised protocol for lumbar puncture with 20 gauge atraumatic or standard needles. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary end point was intention to treat analysis of incidence of moderate to severe headache, assessed at one week by telephone interview. Secondary end points were incidence of headache at one week analysed by needle type, ease of use by operator according to a visual analogue scale, incidence of backache, and failure rate of puncture. RESULTS:Valid outcome data were available for 97 of 101 patients randomised. Baseline characteristics were matched except for higher body mass index in the standard needle group. By an intention to treat analysis the absolute risk of moderate to severe headache with atraumatic needles was reduced by 26% (95% confidence interval 6% to 45%) compared with standard needles, but there was a non-significantly greater absolute risk of multiple attempts at lumbar puncture (14%, -4% to 32%). Higher body mass index was associated with an increased failure rate with atraumatic needles, but the reduced incidence of headache was maintained. The need for medical interventions was reduced by 20% (1% to 40%). CONCLUSIONS:Atraumatic needles significantly reduced the incidence of moderate to severe headache and the need for medical interventions after diagnostic lumbar punctures, but they were associated with a higher failure rate than standard needles.

SUBMITTER: Thomas SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27505 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised controlled trial of atraumatic versus standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture.

Thomas S R SR Jamieson D R DR Muir K W KW

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20001001 7267

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the ease of use of atraumatic needles with standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture and the incidence of headache after their use.<h4>Design</h4>Double blind, randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Investigation ward of a neurology unit in a university hospital.<h4>Participants</h4>116 patients requiring elective diagnostic lumbar puncture.<h4>Interventions</h4>Standardised protocol for lumbar puncture with 20 gauge atraumatic or standard needles.<h4>Outc ...[more]

PMID: 11039963

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe neonatal period carries the highest risk of bacterial meningitis (~ 1 in 5000 births), bearing high mortality (~ 10%) and morbidity (20-50%) rates. Lumbar puncture (LP) remains essential to the diagnosis of meningitis. Though LP is a common procedure in neonates, success rates are lower (50-60%) than in other patient populations. None of the currently-practised neonatal LP techniques are supported by evidence from adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs). NeoCLEAR aims to compare two modifications to the traditional technique which are free, accessible, and commonly practised: sitting (as opposed to lying) position, and 'early' (as opposed to 'late') stylet removal.Methods/designWritten parental informed consent permitting, infants in neonatal/maternity wards, of 27+ 0 to 44+ 0 weeks corrected gestational age and weighing ≥1000 g, who require an LP, will be randomly allocated to sitting or lying position, and to early or late stylet removal. The co-primary objectives are to compare success rates (the proportion of infants with cerebrospinal fluid red cell count < 10,000/mm3 on first LP procedure) in 1020 infants between the two positions, and between the two methods of stylet removal. Secondary outcomes relate to LP procedures, complications, diagnoses of meningitis, duration of antibiotics and hospital stay. A modified intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted.DiscussionTwo modifications to the traditional LP technique (sitting vs lying position; and early vs late stylet removal) will be simultaneously investigated in an efficient and appropriately-powered 2 × 2 factorial RCT design. Analysis will identify the optimal techniques (in terms of obtaining easily-interpretable cerebrospinal fluid), as well as the impact on infants, parents and healthcare systems whilst providing robust safety data. Using a pragmatic RCT design, all practitioners will be trained in all LP techniques, but there will inevitably be variation between unit practice guidelines and other aspects of individual care. An improved LP technique would result in: • Fewer uninterpretable samples, repeated attempts and procedures • Reduced distress for infants and families • Decreased antibiotic use and risk of antibiotic resistance • Reduced healthcare costs due to fewer procedures, reduced length of stay, shorter antibiotic courses, and minimised antibiotic-associated complications TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14040914. Date assigned: 26/06/2018.

Project description:BackgroundPositive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) at minimum respiratory elastance during mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may improve patient care and outcome. The Clinical utilisation of respiratory elastance (CURE) trial is a two-arm, randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the performance of PEEP selected at an objective, model-based minimal respiratory system elastance in patients with ARDS.Methods and designThe CURE RCT compares two groups of patients requiring invasive MV with a partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio ≤ 200; one criterion of the Berlin consensus definition of moderate (≤ 200) or severe (≤ 100) ARDS. All patients are ventilated using pressure controlled (bi-level) ventilation with tidal volume = 6-8 ml/kg. Patients randomised to the control group will have PEEP selected per standard practice (SPV). Patients randomised to the intervention will have PEEP selected based on a minimal elastance using a model-based computerised method. The CURE RCT is a single-centre trial in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Christchurch hospital, New Zealand, with a target sample size of 320 patients over a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome is the area under the curve (AUC) ratio of arterial blood oxygenation to the fraction of inspired oxygen over time. Secondary outcomes include length of time of MV, ventilator-free days (VFD) up to 28 days, ICU and hospital length of stay, AUC of oxygen saturation (SpO2)/FiO2 during MV, number of desaturation events (SpO2 < 88%), changes in respiratory mechanics and chest x-ray index scores, rescue therapies (prone positioning, nitric oxide use, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) and hospital and 90-day mortality.DiscussionThe CURE RCT is the first trial comparing significant clinical outcomes in patients with ARDS in whom PEEP is selected at minimum elastance using an objective model-based method able to quantify and consider both inter-patient and intra-patient variability. CURE aims to demonstrate the hypothesized benefit of patient-specific PEEP and attest to the significance of real-time monitoring and decision-support for MV in the critical care environment.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12614001069640. Registered on 22 September 2014. (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366838&isReview=true) The CURE RCT clinical protocol and data usage has been granted by the New Zealand South Regional Ethics Committee (Reference number: 14/STH/132).

Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of atraumatic versus standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture.

Publications

Randomised controlled trial of atraumatic versus standard needles for diagnostic lumbar puncture.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets