Dataset Information

A randomised crossover study to compare the cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches to ultrasound-guided peripheral venepuncture in a model.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Griffiths J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5376999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. METHODS: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mug budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64(R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64(R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90%CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. RESULTS: All the enrolled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUC(i) (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. CONCLUSION: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No Eudra CT: 2005-003727-39.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnosis and staging of lung cancer is an important process that identifies treatment options and guides disease prognosis. We aimed to assess endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration as an initial investigation technique for patients with suspected lung cancer.MethodsIn this open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients who had undergone a CT scan and had suspected stage I to IIIA lung cancer, from six UK centres and randomly assigned them to either endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) or conventional diagnosis and staging (CDS), for further investigation and staging. If a target node could not be accessed by EBUS-TBNA, then endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was allowed as an alternative procedure. Randomisation was stratified according to the presence of mediastinal lymph nodes measuring 1 cm or more in the short axis and by recruiting centre. We used a telephone randomisation method with permuted blocks of four generated by a computer. Because of the nature of the intervention, masking of participants and consenting investigators was not possible. The primary endpoint was the time-to-treatment decision after completion of the diagnostic and staging investigations and analysis was by intention-to-diagnose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00652769.FindingsBetween June 10, 2008, and July 4, 2011, we randomly allocated 133 patients to treatment: 66 to EBUS-TBNA and 67 to CDS (one later withdrew consent). Two patients from the EBUS-TBNA group underwent EUS-FNA. The median time to treatment decision was shorter with EBUS-TBNA (14 days; 95% CI 14-15) than with CDS (29 days; 23-35) resulting in a hazard ratio of 1·98, (1·39-2·82, p<0·0001). One patient in each group had a pneumothorax from a CT-guided biopsy sample; the patient from the CDS group needed intercostal drainage and was admitted to hospital.InterpretationTransbronchial needle aspiration guided by endobronchial ultrasound should be considered as the initial investigation for patients with suspected lung cancer, because it reduces the time to treatment decision compared with conventional diagnosis and staging techniques.FundingUK Medical Research Council.