Ultrasonic Doppler as a guide for feline peripheral arterial catheterization.

IF 1.9 2区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Satoshi Haginoya, Elizabeth J Thomovsky, Hsin-Yi Weng, Paula A Johnson, Aimee C Brooks
{"title":"Ultrasonic Doppler as a guide for feline peripheral arterial catheterization.","authors":"Satoshi Haginoya, Elizabeth J Thomovsky, Hsin-Yi Weng, Paula A Johnson, Aimee C Brooks","doi":"10.1177/1098612X241257857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The study aimed to determine if an ultrasonic Doppler-guided technique (UDGT) leads to improved placement efficacy (time, success) of feline dorsal pedal arterial catheters vs the traditional palpation-guided technique (TPT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 26 adult, client-owned cats requiring sedation or general anesthesia for any reason, aged >12 months and weighing >3.0 kg, and with Doppler blood pressure measurements of at least 80 mmHg were enrolled. Each hindlimb was randomly assigned for dorsal pedal arterial catheterization using either the UDGT or TPT. With the UDGT, the location of the artery was identified by an audible sound using the Doppler. Successful catheter placement was confirmed by visualization of an arterial pressure waveform using a transducer and monitor system attached to the catheter. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the two techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall proportion of successful arterial catheterization was 17% (9/52): 19% (5/26) via UDGT and 15% (4/26) via TPT. Among successful arterial catheterizations (n = 9), the mean time to catheterization was 339 ± 198 s: 328 ± 237 s (n = 5) with UDGT and 353 ± 171 s (n = 4) with TPT. The log-rank test showed the two techniques were not significantly different in likelihood of successful arterial catheter placement or time to successful catheterization (<i>P</i> = 0.698). An arterial flash occurred in 62% (32/52) of the limbs, 58% (15/26) with the UDGT and 65% (17/26) with the TPT. Complications (self-limiting bruising, hematoma formation) were observed equally between UDGT (3/26 limbs) and TPT (3/26 limbs) in six cats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The UDGT did not improve the efficacy of catheter placement compared with the TPT. Few complications were associated with arterial catheterization.</p>","PeriodicalId":15851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery","volume":"26 8","pages":"1098612X241257857"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X241257857","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to determine if an ultrasonic Doppler-guided technique (UDGT) leads to improved placement efficacy (time, success) of feline dorsal pedal arterial catheters vs the traditional palpation-guided technique (TPT).

Methods: A total of 26 adult, client-owned cats requiring sedation or general anesthesia for any reason, aged >12 months and weighing >3.0 kg, and with Doppler blood pressure measurements of at least 80 mmHg were enrolled. Each hindlimb was randomly assigned for dorsal pedal arterial catheterization using either the UDGT or TPT. With the UDGT, the location of the artery was identified by an audible sound using the Doppler. Successful catheter placement was confirmed by visualization of an arterial pressure waveform using a transducer and monitor system attached to the catheter. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the two techniques.

Results: The overall proportion of successful arterial catheterization was 17% (9/52): 19% (5/26) via UDGT and 15% (4/26) via TPT. Among successful arterial catheterizations (n = 9), the mean time to catheterization was 339 ± 198 s: 328 ± 237 s (n = 5) with UDGT and 353 ± 171 s (n = 4) with TPT. The log-rank test showed the two techniques were not significantly different in likelihood of successful arterial catheter placement or time to successful catheterization (P = 0.698). An arterial flash occurred in 62% (32/52) of the limbs, 58% (15/26) with the UDGT and 65% (17/26) with the TPT. Complications (self-limiting bruising, hematoma formation) were observed equally between UDGT (3/26 limbs) and TPT (3/26 limbs) in six cats.

Conclusions and relevance: The UDGT did not improve the efficacy of catheter placement compared with the TPT. Few complications were associated with arterial catheterization.

超声多普勒作为猫科动物外周动脉导管插入术的指导。
研究目的该研究旨在确定超声多普勒引导技术(UDGT)与传统的触诊引导技术(TPT)相比,是否能提高猫背侧足动脉导管的置管效率(时间、成功率):方法:共招募了 26 只成年猫,这些猫由客户饲养,因任何原因需要镇静或全身麻醉,年龄大于 12 个月,体重大于 3.0 千克,多普勒血压测量值至少为 80 mmHg。随机分配每只后肢,使用 UDGT 或 TPT 进行脚背动脉导管检查。使用 UDGT 时,通过多普勒发出的声音确定动脉位置。通过使用连接在导管上的传感器和监测系统观察动脉压力波形,确认导管是否成功置入。采用卡普兰-梅耶法和对数秩检验对两种技术进行比较:动脉导管插入术的总成功率为 17%(9/52):19%(5/26)通过 UDGT,15%(4/26)通过 TPT。在成功的动脉导管插入中(n = 9),导管插入的平均时间为 339 ± 198 秒:UDGT 为 328 ± 237 秒(5 人),TPT 为 353 ± 171 秒(4 人)。对数秩检验显示,两种技术在动脉导管置入成功的可能性和导管置入成功的时间上没有明显差异(P = 0.698)。62%(32/52)的肢体出现动脉闪光,UDGT 为 58%(15/26),TPT 为 65%(17/26)。在六只猫的 UDGT(3/26 只肢体)和 TPT(3/26 只肢体)中同样观察到了并发症(自限性瘀伤、血肿形成):与 TPT 相比,UDGT 并未提高导管置入的有效性。动脉导管置入术的并发症很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
17.60%
发文量
254
审稿时长
8-16 weeks
期刊介绍: JFMS is an international, peer-reviewed journal aimed at both practitioners and researchers with an interest in the clinical veterinary healthcare of domestic cats. The journal is published monthly in two formats: ‘Classic’ editions containing high-quality original papers on all aspects of feline medicine and surgery, including basic research relevant to clinical practice; and dedicated ‘Clinical Practice’ editions primarily containing opinionated review articles providing state-of-the-art information for feline clinicians, along with other relevant articles such as consensus guidelines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信