Comparing the Push-Pull Technique to Pressure Bag for Administration of Blood Products: A Prospective Nonblinded Observation Simulation-based Study (CoPP toP Study).

IF 1.2 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-05 DOI:10.4103/jets.jets_14_24
Aaron Jacob Grossberg, Daniel A Fowl, Brian T Merritt, George M Nackley, Jude A Polit-Moran, Chelsea L Savona, Sagar C Galwankar
{"title":"Comparing the Push-Pull Technique to Pressure Bag for Administration of Blood Products: A Prospective Nonblinded Observation Simulation-based Study (CoPP toP Study).","authors":"Aaron Jacob Grossberg, Daniel A Fowl, Brian T Merritt, George M Nackley, Jude A Polit-Moran, Chelsea L Savona, Sagar C Galwankar","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_14_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Shock is defined as inadequate delivery of oxygen to meet the tissue's demands. There are four main types of shock: cardiogenic, obstructive, distributive, and hypovolemic. Hypovolemic shock causes include hemorrhage, dehydration, and burns. Blood loss results in inadequate oxygen delivery to the cells resulting in tissue death if not reversed. Rapid infusers allow for the rapid administration of blood and crystalloid products to patients in shock; however, many community emergency departments do not have these devices. The aim of our study is to determine the fastest way to administer blood when the viscosity of the fluid is taken into consideration in a simulated setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Volunteers were assigned to one of two arms: either the push-pull technique or pressure bag technique. The push-pull technique involved using a 50 cc syringe connected to a 3-way stop-cock to withdraw and infuse the fluid. The pressure bag technique involved pumping a pressure bag up to the maximum to infuse the fluids. The speed of infusing 250 mL of <i>intravenous</i> fluids was recorded. The time for the subjects to collect the materials throughout the emergency department was also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of three trials were conducted. On average, the push-pull technique took 228 s and the pressure bag technique took 340 s. The push-pull technique took an average of 112 s less than the pressure bag technique. Subjects took 62 s to find the materials for the pressure bag technique. It took 133 s to find the material for the push-pull technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This prospective nonblinded observation simulation-based study demonstrated that the push-pull technique was significantly faster than the pressure bag technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":"17 4","pages":"208-211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_14_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Shock is defined as inadequate delivery of oxygen to meet the tissue's demands. There are four main types of shock: cardiogenic, obstructive, distributive, and hypovolemic. Hypovolemic shock causes include hemorrhage, dehydration, and burns. Blood loss results in inadequate oxygen delivery to the cells resulting in tissue death if not reversed. Rapid infusers allow for the rapid administration of blood and crystalloid products to patients in shock; however, many community emergency departments do not have these devices. The aim of our study is to determine the fastest way to administer blood when the viscosity of the fluid is taken into consideration in a simulated setting.

Methods: Volunteers were assigned to one of two arms: either the push-pull technique or pressure bag technique. The push-pull technique involved using a 50 cc syringe connected to a 3-way stop-cock to withdraw and infuse the fluid. The pressure bag technique involved pumping a pressure bag up to the maximum to infuse the fluids. The speed of infusing 250 mL of intravenous fluids was recorded. The time for the subjects to collect the materials throughout the emergency department was also recorded.

Results: A total of three trials were conducted. On average, the push-pull technique took 228 s and the pressure bag technique took 340 s. The push-pull technique took an average of 112 s less than the pressure bag technique. Subjects took 62 s to find the materials for the pressure bag technique. It took 133 s to find the material for the push-pull technique.

Conclusion: This prospective nonblinded observation simulation-based study demonstrated that the push-pull technique was significantly faster than the pressure bag technique.

比较推拉技术与压力袋在血液制品管理中的应用:一项基于前瞻性非盲观察模拟的研究(CoPP toP研究)。
休克的定义是供氧不足,不能满足组织的需要。休克主要有四种类型:心源性、梗阻性、分配性和低血容量性。低血容量性休克的原因包括出血、脱水和烧伤。失血会导致向细胞输送的氧气不足,如果不加以扭转,就会导致组织死亡。快速输液器允许休克患者快速给血和晶体制品;然而,许多社区急诊科没有这些设备。我们研究的目的是确定在模拟环境中考虑液体粘度时最快的给血方法。方法:志愿者被分配到两种方法中的一种:推拉技术或压力袋技术。推拉技术涉及使用50cc注射器连接到3路旋塞提取和注入液体。压力袋技术包括将压力袋泵到最大以注入流体。记录静脉输液250 mL的速度。受试者在整个急诊科收集材料的时间也被记录下来。结果:共进行了3项试验。推拉法平均耗时228 s,压袋法平均耗时340 s。推拉法比压力袋法平均缩短了112秒。受试者用62 s的时间寻找压力袋技术所需的材料。用了133秒才找到推拉技术所需的材料。结论:基于前瞻性非盲法观察模拟的研究表明,推拉技术明显快于压力袋技术。
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
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
52
审稿时长
39 weeks
×
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