Sushma Konnepati, Jasmine Sethi, Anupam Lal, Raja Ramachandran, Manish Rathi
{"title":"有无透视辅助超声引导下的透析导管插入及并发症比较：随机研究","authors":"Sushma Konnepati, Jasmine Sethi, Anupam Lal, Raja Ramachandran, Manish Rathi","doi":"10.25259/ijn_414_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nFluoroscopy is considered to be the gold standard and an essential requirement for catheter insertion. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes in ultrasound (USG)-guided insertion with and without fluoroscopy. We compared the complications of USG-guided tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion with and without fluoroscopy assistance.\n\n\nThis was a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) done in a tertiary hospital in North India. After screening 153 patients, 149 were enrolled: 87 were randomized into USG-guided insertion without fluoroscopy (group A) and 62 were randomized into USG-guided insertion with fluoroscopy (group B). All insertions were done in a dedicated procedure room by trained nephrologists. Outcomes were analyzed at baseline and at 1-month follow-up. Mechanical complications as well as infective and thrombotic complications were compared between both the groups.\n\n\nTDC insertion was successful (100%) in all the study participants (N = 149). One hundred twenty-nine catheters (86.5%) were inserted in the first attempt, 19 (12.5%) in the second attempt, and one catheter insertion required three attempts for insertion. The mean age of study participants was 43 years (±16.5), and males constituted 63% of the study cohort. Baseline laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The mean time of catheter insertion was 41.26 min (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) in group A and 47.74 min (SD 17.2) in group B (P = 0.007). The mean score of ease of catheter insertion, exit site bleed, infective and mechanical complications were not different between the two groups.\n\n\nOur study concluded that fluoroscopy has no additional advantage in reducing mechanical, infective, or thrombotic complications. In experienced hands, USG-guided TDC insertion without fluoroscopy assistance is as good as the insertion done with fluoroscopy assistance, with a shorter procedure time.\n","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Dialysis Catheter Insertion and Complications Under Ultrasound Guidance with or without Fluoroscopic Assistance: A Randomized Study\",\"authors\":\"Sushma Konnepati, Jasmine Sethi, Anupam Lal, Raja Ramachandran, Manish Rathi\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/ijn_414_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nFluoroscopy is considered to be the gold standard and an essential requirement for catheter insertion. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes in ultrasound (USG)-guided insertion with and without fluoroscopy. We compared the complications of USG-guided tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion with and without fluoroscopy assistance.\\n\\n\\nThis was a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) done in a tertiary hospital in North India. After screening 153 patients, 149 were enrolled: 87 were randomized into USG-guided insertion without fluoroscopy (group A) and 62 were randomized into USG-guided insertion with fluoroscopy (group B). All insertions were done in a dedicated procedure room by trained nephrologists. Outcomes were analyzed at baseline and at 1-month follow-up. Mechanical complications as well as infective and thrombotic complications were compared between both the groups.\\n\\n\\nTDC insertion was successful (100%) in all the study participants (N = 149). One hundred twenty-nine catheters (86.5%) were inserted in the first attempt, 19 (12.5%) in the second attempt, and one catheter insertion required three attempts for insertion. The mean age of study participants was 43 years (±16.5), and males constituted 63% of the study cohort. Baseline laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The mean time of catheter insertion was 41.26 min (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) in group A and 47.74 min (SD 17.2) in group B (P = 0.007). The mean score of ease of catheter insertion, exit site bleed, infective and mechanical complications were not different between the two groups.\\n\\n\\nOur study concluded that fluoroscopy has no additional advantage in reducing mechanical, infective, or thrombotic complications. In experienced hands, USG-guided TDC insertion without fluoroscopy assistance is as good as the insertion done with fluoroscopy assistance, with a shorter procedure time.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijn_414_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/ijn_414_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Dialysis Catheter Insertion and Complications Under Ultrasound Guidance with or without Fluoroscopic Assistance: A Randomized Study
Fluoroscopy is considered to be the gold standard and an essential requirement for catheter insertion. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes in ultrasound (USG)-guided insertion with and without fluoroscopy. We compared the complications of USG-guided tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion with and without fluoroscopy assistance.
This was a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) done in a tertiary hospital in North India. After screening 153 patients, 149 were enrolled: 87 were randomized into USG-guided insertion without fluoroscopy (group A) and 62 were randomized into USG-guided insertion with fluoroscopy (group B). All insertions were done in a dedicated procedure room by trained nephrologists. Outcomes were analyzed at baseline and at 1-month follow-up. Mechanical complications as well as infective and thrombotic complications were compared between both the groups.
TDC insertion was successful (100%) in all the study participants (N = 149). One hundred twenty-nine catheters (86.5%) were inserted in the first attempt, 19 (12.5%) in the second attempt, and one catheter insertion required three attempts for insertion. The mean age of study participants was 43 years (±16.5), and males constituted 63% of the study cohort. Baseline laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The mean time of catheter insertion was 41.26 min (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) in group A and 47.74 min (SD 17.2) in group B (P = 0.007). The mean score of ease of catheter insertion, exit site bleed, infective and mechanical complications were not different between the two groups.
Our study concluded that fluoroscopy has no additional advantage in reducing mechanical, infective, or thrombotic complications. In experienced hands, USG-guided TDC insertion without fluoroscopy assistance is as good as the insertion done with fluoroscopy assistance, with a shorter procedure time.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
