评论:“动静脉瘘的多重单管技术:一项随机对照试验”

Ricardo Peralta, Rui Sousa, Bruno Pinto, P. Gonçalves, Carla Felix, João Fazendeiro, Matos
{"title":"评论:“动静脉瘘的多重单管技术:一项随机对照试验”","authors":"Ricardo Peralta, Rui Sousa, Bruno Pinto, P. Gonçalves, Carla Felix, João Fazendeiro, Matos","doi":"10.33696/nephrology.1.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most important renal nursing procedures is the cannulation of a vascular access (VA), a procedure that is carried out on every single dialysis treatment. VA cannulation method is still a procedure that reflects local unit practices and the skill of the individual nurse. Despite the impact needling has on VA survival and patient outcome, no universal or standardized method has been proposed for cannulation [1]. Observational data reveals a large variation in how different cannulation techniques are applied in clinical practice. Techniques such as buttonhole (BH), rope ladder (RL), and area cannulation (AC) are often applied in different ways, resulting in different results, which confounds interpretation of the available evidence [2]. For example, in several randomized controlled trials (RCT) [3-5] comparing RL and BH cannulation techniques, researchers described the implementation of BH in some detail but did not define how they implemented RL. What is known is that RL consists of using the entire length of the available vessel through progressive rotation with equal distribution of the cannulation sites at each dialysis session, following a diagram showing the characteristics of each individual arteriovenous fistula (AVF) [6]. BH technique requires different skills from RL, as the AVF needs to be repeatedly cannulated at exactly the same site, using the same insertion angle and the same depth of penetration every time. The available literature does not currently recommend the routine use of BH in all AVF, due to the high risk of infection, but BH may be appropriate for patients with a short cannulation segment [7]. Cannulators using AC also create new puncture sites each time, but with all sites placed in the same area, one rarely larger than 2–3 cm in diameter. The different cannulation techniques (CT) have been investigated, with guidelines stating AC should not be used because of the increased risk of complications such as aneurysms and hemorrhage [8]. VA CT have not seen any development in recent years and in the most recently updated KDOQI [9] guidelines state that rigorous studies assessing cannulation practices to achieve zero complications are necessary. To answer this challenge, a new approach to fistula cannulation with apparent benefits for patients has been used since 2013, the Multiple Single cannulation Technique (MuST) [6,10].","PeriodicalId":93732,"journal":{"name":"Archives of nephrology and renal studies","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary on: “Multiple Single Cannulation Technique of Arteriovenous Fistula: A Randomised Controlled Trial”\",\"authors\":\"Ricardo Peralta, Rui Sousa, Bruno Pinto, P. Gonçalves, Carla Felix, João Fazendeiro, Matos\",\"doi\":\"10.33696/nephrology.1.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most important renal nursing procedures is the cannulation of a vascular access (VA), a procedure that is carried out on every single dialysis treatment. VA cannulation method is still a procedure that reflects local unit practices and the skill of the individual nurse. Despite the impact needling has on VA survival and patient outcome, no universal or standardized method has been proposed for cannulation [1]. Observational data reveals a large variation in how different cannulation techniques are applied in clinical practice. Techniques such as buttonhole (BH), rope ladder (RL), and area cannulation (AC) are often applied in different ways, resulting in different results, which confounds interpretation of the available evidence [2]. For example, in several randomized controlled trials (RCT) [3-5] comparing RL and BH cannulation techniques, researchers described the implementation of BH in some detail but did not define how they implemented RL. What is known is that RL consists of using the entire length of the available vessel through progressive rotation with equal distribution of the cannulation sites at each dialysis session, following a diagram showing the characteristics of each individual arteriovenous fistula (AVF) [6]. BH technique requires different skills from RL, as the AVF needs to be repeatedly cannulated at exactly the same site, using the same insertion angle and the same depth of penetration every time. The available literature does not currently recommend the routine use of BH in all AVF, due to the high risk of infection, but BH may be appropriate for patients with a short cannulation segment [7]. Cannulators using AC also create new puncture sites each time, but with all sites placed in the same area, one rarely larger than 2–3 cm in diameter. The different cannulation techniques (CT) have been investigated, with guidelines stating AC should not be used because of the increased risk of complications such as aneurysms and hemorrhage [8]. VA CT have not seen any development in recent years and in the most recently updated KDOQI [9] guidelines state that rigorous studies assessing cannulation practices to achieve zero complications are necessary. To answer this challenge, a new approach to fistula cannulation with apparent benefits for patients has been used since 2013, the Multiple Single cannulation Technique (MuST) [6,10].\",\"PeriodicalId\":93732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of nephrology and renal studies\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of nephrology and renal studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33696/nephrology.1.005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of nephrology and renal studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33696/nephrology.1.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

最重要的肾脏护理程序之一是血管通道插管(VA),这是在每次透析治疗中进行的程序。VA插管方法仍然是一个程序,反映了当地单位的做法和个别护士的技能。尽管针刺对VA存活和患者预后有影响,但尚未提出通用或标准化的插管方法[1]。观察数据显示,不同的插管技术在临床实践中的应用存在很大差异。扣眼(BH)、绳梯(RL)和区域套管(AC)等技术通常以不同的方式应用,导致不同的结果,这混淆了对现有证据的解释[2]。例如,在几项比较RL和BH插管技术的随机对照试验(RCT)[3-5]中,研究人员详细描述了BH的实施,但没有定义他们如何实施RL。已知的是,RL包括在每次透析过程中通过渐进旋转均匀分布插管位置来使用可用血管的整个长度,遵循显示每个单独的动静脉瘘(AVF)特征的图表[6]。BH技术与RL技术要求不同,因为AVF需要在完全相同的位置重复插管,每次使用相同的插入角度和相同的穿透深度。由于感染风险高,现有文献目前不建议在所有AVF中常规使用BH,但BH可能适用于插管段较短的患者[7]。使用交流电的穿刺器每次也会产生新的穿刺点,但所有的穿刺点都位于同一区域,直径很少大于2-3厘米。不同的插管技术(CT)已被研究,指南指出AC不应使用,因为会增加并发症的风险,如动脉瘤和出血[8]。近年来VA CT没有任何发展,在最近更新的KDOQI[9]指南中指出,有必要进行严格的研究,评估插管实践以实现零并发症。为了应对这一挑战,自2013年以来,一种对患者明显有益的瘘管插管新方法被采用,即多重单管插管技术(Multiple Single cannulation Technique, MuST)[6,10]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commentary on: “Multiple Single Cannulation Technique of Arteriovenous Fistula: A Randomised Controlled Trial”
One of the most important renal nursing procedures is the cannulation of a vascular access (VA), a procedure that is carried out on every single dialysis treatment. VA cannulation method is still a procedure that reflects local unit practices and the skill of the individual nurse. Despite the impact needling has on VA survival and patient outcome, no universal or standardized method has been proposed for cannulation [1]. Observational data reveals a large variation in how different cannulation techniques are applied in clinical practice. Techniques such as buttonhole (BH), rope ladder (RL), and area cannulation (AC) are often applied in different ways, resulting in different results, which confounds interpretation of the available evidence [2]. For example, in several randomized controlled trials (RCT) [3-5] comparing RL and BH cannulation techniques, researchers described the implementation of BH in some detail but did not define how they implemented RL. What is known is that RL consists of using the entire length of the available vessel through progressive rotation with equal distribution of the cannulation sites at each dialysis session, following a diagram showing the characteristics of each individual arteriovenous fistula (AVF) [6]. BH technique requires different skills from RL, as the AVF needs to be repeatedly cannulated at exactly the same site, using the same insertion angle and the same depth of penetration every time. The available literature does not currently recommend the routine use of BH in all AVF, due to the high risk of infection, but BH may be appropriate for patients with a short cannulation segment [7]. Cannulators using AC also create new puncture sites each time, but with all sites placed in the same area, one rarely larger than 2–3 cm in diameter. The different cannulation techniques (CT) have been investigated, with guidelines stating AC should not be used because of the increased risk of complications such as aneurysms and hemorrhage [8]. VA CT have not seen any development in recent years and in the most recently updated KDOQI [9] guidelines state that rigorous studies assessing cannulation practices to achieve zero complications are necessary. To answer this challenge, a new approach to fistula cannulation with apparent benefits for patients has been used since 2013, the Multiple Single cannulation Technique (MuST) [6,10].
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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