Palpation versus Ultrasound-Guided Dynamic Needle Tip Positioning Technique for Radial Artery Cannulation.

IF 1.3 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-08 DOI:10.4103/aca.aca_209_24
Sujan Dhakal, Gentle S Shrestha, Ritesh Lamsal, Priska Bastola, Elija Gautam, Anil Shrestha
{"title":"Palpation versus Ultrasound-Guided Dynamic Needle Tip Positioning Technique for Radial Artery Cannulation.","authors":"Sujan Dhakal, Gentle S Shrestha, Ritesh Lamsal, Priska Bastola, Elija Gautam, Anil Shrestha","doi":"10.4103/aca.aca_209_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Invasive blood pressure monitoring is the clinical reference during perioperative patient management. It is usually performed by cannulating the radial artery. Different clinical conditions make arterial cannulation difficult using the conventional palpation (CP) method. This study compares the ultrasonography (USG)-guided dynamic needle tip positioning (DNTP) technique with the CP method to assess the first-pass success rate of radial artery cannulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the operation theater of a university hospital, a total of 52 adult patients requiring arterial cannulation were randomized into two equal groups. Arterial cannulation was performed using the CP method in one group and the ultrasound-guided DNTP method in the other group. The first-pass success rate was the primary objective. The 5-minute success rate, the time required for successful cannulation, the number of skin punctures, and the number of cannulae used were also compared using the Chi-square test, an independent sample t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first-pass success rate was significantly higher in the USG-guided DNTP method (88.5%) compared to the CP method (46.2%) (P 0.001). The overall 5-minute success rate was 96.2% in the USG-guided DNTP and 65.4% (P 0.005) in the CP method. The median time for successful cannulation was significantly lesser in the USG-guided DNTP group [44 s (IQR: 35-72)] compared to the CP group [134 s (IQR: 28-378)] (P 0.007). The mean number of skin punctures in the USG-guided DNTP group was 1.15 ± 0.46 and 2.04 ± 1.18 in the CP group (P 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>USG-guided DNTP method of radial artery cannulation increased the first-pass success rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":7997,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","volume":"28 3","pages":"248-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12324782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_209_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Invasive blood pressure monitoring is the clinical reference during perioperative patient management. It is usually performed by cannulating the radial artery. Different clinical conditions make arterial cannulation difficult using the conventional palpation (CP) method. This study compares the ultrasonography (USG)-guided dynamic needle tip positioning (DNTP) technique with the CP method to assess the first-pass success rate of radial artery cannulation.

Methods: In the operation theater of a university hospital, a total of 52 adult patients requiring arterial cannulation were randomized into two equal groups. Arterial cannulation was performed using the CP method in one group and the ultrasound-guided DNTP method in the other group. The first-pass success rate was the primary objective. The 5-minute success rate, the time required for successful cannulation, the number of skin punctures, and the number of cannulae used were also compared using the Chi-square test, an independent sample t-test, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: The first-pass success rate was significantly higher in the USG-guided DNTP method (88.5%) compared to the CP method (46.2%) (P 0.001). The overall 5-minute success rate was 96.2% in the USG-guided DNTP and 65.4% (P 0.005) in the CP method. The median time for successful cannulation was significantly lesser in the USG-guided DNTP group [44 s (IQR: 35-72)] compared to the CP group [134 s (IQR: 28-378)] (P 0.007). The mean number of skin punctures in the USG-guided DNTP group was 1.15 ± 0.46 and 2.04 ± 1.18 in the CP group (P 0.001).

Conclusion: USG-guided DNTP method of radial artery cannulation increased the first-pass success rate.

触诊与超声引导下动态针尖定位技术在桡动脉插管中的应用。
简介:有创血压监测是围手术期患者管理的临床参考。它通常通过桡动脉插管来完成。不同的临床条件使得常规的触诊(CP)方法难以进行动脉插管。本研究比较超声(USG)引导下动态针尖定位(DNTP)技术与CP方法评估桡动脉插管的首次成功率。方法:在某大学附属医院的手术室,将52例需要动脉插管的成人患者随机分为两组。一组采用CP方法行动脉插管,另一组采用超声引导下的DNTP方法行动脉插管。第一次通过率是主要目标。采用卡方检验、独立样本t检验和Mann-Whitney U检验比较5分钟成功率、插管成功所需时间、皮肤穿刺次数和插管使用次数。结果:usg引导下DNTP方法的一次通过成功率(88.5%)明显高于CP方法(46.2%)(P < 0.001)。usg引导的DNTP总5分钟成功率为96.2%,CP方法为65.4% (P < 0.005)。usg引导下DNTP组插管成功的中位时间[44 s (IQR: 35-72)]明显少于CP组[134 s (IQR: 28-378)] (P 0.007)。usg引导下DNTP组平均皮肤穿刺次数为1.15±0.46次,CP组为2.04±1.18次(P < 0.001)。结论:usg引导下DNTP方法桡动脉插管可提高首通成功率。
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
147
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia (ACA) is the official journal of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular Thoracic Anaesthesiologists. The journal is indexed with PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, IndMed and MedInd. The journal’s full text is online at www.annals.in. With the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing articles ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in ACA. Authors do not have to pay for submission, processing or publication of articles in ACA.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信