A WIN for Safety and Efficacy: Evaluation of Developmental WINguide and Hybrid Guide for Wire-in-Needle Peripherally Inserted Central Line Catheter (PICC) Cannulation

Q3 Medicine
Nancy Arredondo, Michelle Humston, S. McCraven, J. Shields, L. Palacios, J. Pavelka, San Tran, Mitchell Fong, Sam Shields
{"title":"A WIN for Safety and Efficacy: Evaluation of Developmental WINguide and Hybrid Guide for Wire-in-Needle Peripherally Inserted Central Line Catheter (PICC) Cannulation","authors":"Nancy Arredondo, Michelle Humston, S. McCraven, J. Shields, L. Palacios, J. Pavelka, San Tran, Mitchell Fong, Sam Shields","doi":"10.2309/java-d-20-00014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \n \n Purpose/Design: This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of WINguide with the wire-in-needle (WIN) technique and the Hybrid Guide with hybrid technique (WT/HT) in effectively and safely achieving vein cannulation with a peripherally inserted central line catheter (PICC) guidewire on a simulation model.\n Methods: Two videos were watched. The first illustrates freehand modified Seldinger technique (MST) for PICC guidewire placement with ultrasound using a short axis (SA) puncture, rotating to long axis (LA) for placement into a Blue Phantom© manikin. The second uses the same SA and LA method using WT/HT. Randomized selection was performed to eliminate control bias; participants were recorded for data collection. Participants completed a survey on past proficiency and experience with the study devices.\n Results: Sixty-three of the 65 total participants’ hands were video recorded with the ultrasound screen during procedures and were included in data analysis. There were significantly fewer disappearances (the image of the vein on the ultrasound screen disappears) of LA view with devices (P = .002) and significantly fewer unique cases with disappearances of the LA view (P = .002). Survey results of all 65 participants are included in descriptive statistics. Of the total participants, 63.1% believe the procedure is faster with WT/HT. Of the inexperienced participants, 82.9% felt PICC guidewire placement is safer using WT/HT; 82.9% of inexperienced participants prefer WT/HT over freehand MST; and 90.8% of all participants would use WT/HT again.\n Limitations: Future research should be done with larger sample size.\n Conclusions: Using survey results, there seems to be a preference for using the WT/HT compared to MST for guidewire placement. In all metrics evaluated, the two techniques had either statistically similar results or the WT/HT had statistically significantly better results than MST.\n","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2309/java-d-20-00014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose/Design: This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of WINguide with the wire-in-needle (WIN) technique and the Hybrid Guide with hybrid technique (WT/HT) in effectively and safely achieving vein cannulation with a peripherally inserted central line catheter (PICC) guidewire on a simulation model. Methods: Two videos were watched. The first illustrates freehand modified Seldinger technique (MST) for PICC guidewire placement with ultrasound using a short axis (SA) puncture, rotating to long axis (LA) for placement into a Blue Phantom© manikin. The second uses the same SA and LA method using WT/HT. Randomized selection was performed to eliminate control bias; participants were recorded for data collection. Participants completed a survey on past proficiency and experience with the study devices. Results: Sixty-three of the 65 total participants’ hands were video recorded with the ultrasound screen during procedures and were included in data analysis. There were significantly fewer disappearances (the image of the vein on the ultrasound screen disappears) of LA view with devices (P = .002) and significantly fewer unique cases with disappearances of the LA view (P = .002). Survey results of all 65 participants are included in descriptive statistics. Of the total participants, 63.1% believe the procedure is faster with WT/HT. Of the inexperienced participants, 82.9% felt PICC guidewire placement is safer using WT/HT; 82.9% of inexperienced participants prefer WT/HT over freehand MST; and 90.8% of all participants would use WT/HT again. Limitations: Future research should be done with larger sample size. Conclusions: Using survey results, there seems to be a preference for using the WT/HT compared to MST for guidewire placement. In all metrics evaluated, the two techniques had either statistically similar results or the WT/HT had statistically significantly better results than MST.
安全性和有效性的WIN:发展WINguide和混合指南对针内导线周围插入中心静脉导管(PICC)插管的评价
目的/设计:本研究旨在通过模拟模型,确定WINguide配合针内丝(WIN)技术和Hybrid Guide配合Hybrid技术(WT/HT)在有效、安全地实现外周插入中心线导管(PICC)导丝静脉插管中的疗效。方法:观看两段录像。第一个演示了使用短轴(SA)穿刺,旋转到长轴(LA)置入蓝色幻影©人体模型的PICC导丝放置的手绘改进Seldinger技术(MST)。第二个使用相同的SA和LA方法使用WT/HT。随机选择以消除对照偏倚;对参与者进行记录以收集数据。参与者完成了一项关于过去使用研究设备的熟练程度和经验的调查。结果:65名参与者的63只手在手术过程中被超声屏幕录像并纳入数据分析。有器械的LA视图消失(超声屏幕上静脉图像消失)明显减少(P = 0.002), LA视图消失的独特病例明显减少(P = 0.002)。所有65名参与者的调查结果均纳入描述性统计。在所有参与者中,63.1%的人认为WT/HT手术更快。在没有经验的参与者中,82.9%的人认为使用WT/HT放置PICC导丝更安全;82.9%没有经验的参与者更喜欢WT/HT而不是徒手MST;90.8%的参与者会再次使用WT/HT。局限性:未来的研究需要更大的样本量。结论:使用调查结果,与MST相比,似乎更倾向于使用WT/HT放置导丝。在评估的所有指标中,这两种技术的结果在统计学上相似,或者WT/HT的结果在统计学上明显优于MST。
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
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access
JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.
×
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