Ultrasound basilic vein cannulation

0

Rose, J.S. and Norbutas, C.M. (2008) A randomized controlled trial comparing one-operator versus two-operator technique in ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 35(4), p.431-5.

Abstract:

The basilic vein offers an alternative site for peripheral intravenous access for emergency access. The use of a two-operator ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation technique has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for use on Emergency Department patients. However, the one-operator technique is more customary by other services. We sought to compare the more customary one-person technique to the two-person technique in basilic vein cannulation in novice operators. This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of two techniques of ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation (one-operator vs. two-operators) in healthy adult volunteers. Each volunteer underwent each technique, one technique on each arm. We selected the initial arm and technique using computer-generated block randomization. In the one-operator technique, a single operator held the transducer in transverse short-axis plane while attempting cannulation using a 20-gauge, 1.88-inch catheter. In the two-operator technique, a second operator held the transducer in place while the first operator attempted cannulation. The primary outcome variable was first-attempt cannulation success. Secondary outcome variables were overall success, number of attempts, time-to-cannulation, complications, and ease-of-technique rated by the operators. There were 32 subjects enrolled. One-operator first-attempt success was 18/32 (56%); two-operator was 21/32 (65%), with a mean difference in proportion of -9% (95% confidence interval [CI] -33-14%). Overall success for one operator was 23/32 (72%) and two-operator was 24/32 (75%), with mean difference in proportion of -3% (95% CI -24-18). The median number of attempts for one-operator was 1.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5) and two-operator was 1.4 (IQR 1-5) (p = 0.8). Time to cannulation for one-operator was 57 s (+/- 62) and two-operator was 44 s (+/- 37) (p = 0.33). The median score for ease-of-technique for one-operator was 4.3 (IQR 1-6) and for two-operator was 3.6 (IQR 1-6) (p = 0.26). There were no complications with either technique (95% CI 0-10%). Novice operators can reliably perform a basilic vein cannulation using ultrasound guidance. However, we were unable to demonstrate any advantage for any particular technique in cannulating the basilic vein.

More IV news at IVTEAM
Rose, J.S. and Norbutas, C.M. (2008) A randomized controlled trial comparing one-operator versus two-operator technique in ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 35(4), p.431-5.

Abstract:

The basilic vein offers an alternative site for peripheral intravenous access for emergency access. The use of a two-operator ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation technique has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for use on Emergency Department patients. However, the one-operator technique is more customary by other services. We sought to compare the more customary one-person technique to the two-person technique in basilic vein cannulation in novice operators. This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of two techniques of ultrasound-guided basilic vein cannulation (one-operator vs. two-operators) in healthy adult volunteers. Each volunteer underwent each technique, one technique on each arm. We selected the initial arm and technique using computer-generated block randomization. In the one-operator technique, a single operator held the transducer in transverse short-axis plane while attempting cannulation using a 20-gauge, 1.88-inch catheter. In the two-operator technique, a second operator held the transducer in place while the first operator attempted cannulation. The primary outcome variable was first-attempt cannulation success. Secondary outcome variables were overall success, number of attempts, time-to-cannulation, complications, and ease-of-technique rated by the operators. There were 32 subjects enrolled. One-operator first-attempt success was 18/32 (56%); two-operator was 21/32 (65%), with a mean difference in proportion of -9% (95% confidence interval [CI] -33-14%). Overall success for one operator was 23/32 (72%) and two-operator was 24/32 (75%), with mean difference in proportion of -3% (95% CI -24-18). The median number of attempts for one-operator was 1.6 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5) and two-operator was 1.4 (IQR 1-5) (p = 0.8). Time to cannulation for one-operator was 57 s (+/- 62) and two-operator was 44 s (+/- 37) (p = 0.33). The median score for ease-of-technique for one-operator was 4.3 (IQR 1-6) and for two-operator was 3.6 (IQR 1-6) (p = 0.26). There were no complications with either technique (95% CI 0-10%). Novice operators can reliably perform a basilic vein cannulation using ultrasound guidance. However, we were unable to demonstrate any advantage for any particular technique in cannulating the basilic vein.

More IV news at IVTEAM

Share.

Comments are closed.

Free Email Updates
Join 5.5K IVTEAM members. Subscribe now and be the first to receive all the latest free updates from IVTEAM!
100% Privacy. We don't spam.