A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design
Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe. We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resusc...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Australian critical care 2022-01, Vol.35 (1), p.66-71 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 71 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 66 |
| container_title | Australian critical care |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Yamaguchi, Keishi Doi, Tomoki Muguruma, Takashi Nakajima, Kento Nakamura, Kyota Abe, Takeru Takeuchi, Ichiro Morimura, Naoto |
| description | Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe.
We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resuscitation faster and easier than using a normal-flow three-way stopcock (NTS).
This was a simulation study with a prospective, nonblinded randomised crossover design. Twenty physicians were randomly assigned into two groups. Each participant used six peripheral intravenous infusion circuits, three with the HTS and the others with the NTS, and three cannulae, 22, 20, and 18 gauge (G). The first group started with the HTS first, while the other started with the NTS first. They were asked to inject the fluid as quick as possible. We compared the time until the participants finished rapid infusions of 500 ml of 0.9% saline and the practitioner's effort.
In infusion circuits attached with the 22G cannula, the mean difference using the HTS and the NTS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 16.30 ml/min (7.65–24.94) (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.01.008 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2520882020</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1036731421000321</els_id><sourcerecordid>2520882020</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-f3c0240f222afd576e0e1f22917bc15ac3f5a4987b45656998f7b4a718f998493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UctuHCEQRFEiv38gh4hjLrMB5sVYvqysxIlkKZf4jFhodtnMDGsYbO2_5JBv8Zel12P7GKkFTauquuki5CNnC85482W70NmYhWCCLxgGk-_ICZetLHgr-HvMWdkUbcmrY3Ka0pYx0VVNdUSOy7ITTSvlCfmzpMkPudeTDyNNU7Z7Ghzd-PWmcH14pA8QU050DHHQ_VyaNhGgeNR7xIedCeY3dSHSqHfeUtdnPLUd_OjTFGddP1IYIK5hNEjyU34up0u6fPob9WjD4BNYamJIKWBHaiH59XhOPjjdJ7h4uc_I3bevv66_F7c_b35cL28LU3b1VLjSMFExJ4TQztZtAww4vjrergyvtSldratOtquqbuqm66TDVLdcOsyrrjwjn2fdXQz3GdKkcB4Dfa9HCDkpUQsmJe6ZIVTM0OdZIzi1i37Qca84UwdX1FYdXFEHVxTDYBJJn17082oA-0Z5tQEBVzMA8JcPHqJKxuOywPoIZlI2-P_p_wP1naI9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2520882020</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Yamaguchi, Keishi ; Doi, Tomoki ; Muguruma, Takashi ; Nakajima, Kento ; Nakamura, Kyota ; Abe, Takeru ; Takeuchi, Ichiro ; Morimura, Naoto</creator><creatorcontrib>Yamaguchi, Keishi ; Doi, Tomoki ; Muguruma, Takashi ; Nakajima, Kento ; Nakamura, Kyota ; Abe, Takeru ; Takeuchi, Ichiro ; Morimura, Naoto</creatorcontrib><description>Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe.
We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resuscitation faster and easier than using a normal-flow three-way stopcock (NTS).
This was a simulation study with a prospective, nonblinded randomised crossover design. Twenty physicians were randomly assigned into two groups. Each participant used six peripheral intravenous infusion circuits, three with the HTS and the others with the NTS, and three cannulae, 22, 20, and 18 gauge (G). The first group started with the HTS first, while the other started with the NTS first. They were asked to inject the fluid as quick as possible. We compared the time until the participants finished rapid infusions of 500 ml of 0.9% saline and the practitioner's effort.
In infusion circuits attached with the 22G cannula, the mean difference using the HTS and the NTS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 16.30 ml/min (7.65–24.94) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 20G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 23.47 (12.43–34.51) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 18G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 42.53 (28.68–56.38) (p < 0.01).
This study revealed that the push-and-pull technique using the HTS was faster, easier, and less tiresome than using the NTS, with a statistically significant difference. In the resuscitation phase, initial and faster infusion is important. If only a single physician or other staff member such as a nurse is attending or does not have accessibility to any other devices in such an environment where medical resources are scarce, performing the push-and-pull technique using the HTS could help a physician to perform fluid resuscitation faster. By setting up the HTS instead of the NTS from the beginning, we would be able to begin fluid resuscitation immediately while preparing other devices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1036-7314</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-1721</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.01.008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33926788</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Cross-Over Studies ; Fluid Therapy - methods ; Haemorrhagic shock ; Humans ; Hypovolemic shock ; Infusion with a syringe ; Initial infusion ; Prospective Studies ; Resuscitation - methods ; Shock ; Trauma</subject><ispartof>Australian critical care, 2022-01, Vol.35 (1), p.66-71</ispartof><rights>2021 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-f3c0240f222afd576e0e1f22917bc15ac3f5a4987b45656998f7b4a718f998493</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2874-7731 ; 0000-0003-3162-7765 ; 0000-0003-3496-1953</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.01.008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926788$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yamaguchi, Keishi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doi, Tomoki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muguruma, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakajima, Kento</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakamura, Kyota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abe, Takeru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takeuchi, Ichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morimura, Naoto</creatorcontrib><title>A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design</title><title>Australian critical care</title><addtitle>Aust Crit Care</addtitle><description>Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe.
We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resuscitation faster and easier than using a normal-flow three-way stopcock (NTS).
This was a simulation study with a prospective, nonblinded randomised crossover design. Twenty physicians were randomly assigned into two groups. Each participant used six peripheral intravenous infusion circuits, three with the HTS and the others with the NTS, and three cannulae, 22, 20, and 18 gauge (G). The first group started with the HTS first, while the other started with the NTS first. They were asked to inject the fluid as quick as possible. We compared the time until the participants finished rapid infusions of 500 ml of 0.9% saline and the practitioner's effort.
In infusion circuits attached with the 22G cannula, the mean difference using the HTS and the NTS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 16.30 ml/min (7.65–24.94) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 20G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 23.47 (12.43–34.51) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 18G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 42.53 (28.68–56.38) (p < 0.01).
This study revealed that the push-and-pull technique using the HTS was faster, easier, and less tiresome than using the NTS, with a statistically significant difference. In the resuscitation phase, initial and faster infusion is important. If only a single physician or other staff member such as a nurse is attending or does not have accessibility to any other devices in such an environment where medical resources are scarce, performing the push-and-pull technique using the HTS could help a physician to perform fluid resuscitation faster. By setting up the HTS instead of the NTS from the beginning, we would be able to begin fluid resuscitation immediately while preparing other devices.</description><subject>Cross-Over Studies</subject><subject>Fluid Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Haemorrhagic shock</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hypovolemic shock</subject><subject>Infusion with a syringe</subject><subject>Initial infusion</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Resuscitation - methods</subject><subject>Shock</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><issn>1036-7314</issn><issn>1878-1721</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UctuHCEQRFEiv38gh4hjLrMB5sVYvqysxIlkKZf4jFhodtnMDGsYbO2_5JBv8Zel12P7GKkFTauquuki5CNnC85482W70NmYhWCCLxgGk-_ICZetLHgr-HvMWdkUbcmrY3Ka0pYx0VVNdUSOy7ITTSvlCfmzpMkPudeTDyNNU7Z7Ghzd-PWmcH14pA8QU050DHHQ_VyaNhGgeNR7xIedCeY3dSHSqHfeUtdnPLUd_OjTFGddP1IYIK5hNEjyU34up0u6fPob9WjD4BNYamJIKWBHaiH59XhOPjjdJ7h4uc_I3bevv66_F7c_b35cL28LU3b1VLjSMFExJ4TQztZtAww4vjrergyvtSldratOtquqbuqm66TDVLdcOsyrrjwjn2fdXQz3GdKkcB4Dfa9HCDkpUQsmJe6ZIVTM0OdZIzi1i37Qca84UwdX1FYdXFEHVxTDYBJJn17082oA-0Z5tQEBVzMA8JcPHqJKxuOywPoIZlI2-P_p_wP1naI9</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Yamaguchi, Keishi</creator><creator>Doi, Tomoki</creator><creator>Muguruma, Takashi</creator><creator>Nakajima, Kento</creator><creator>Nakamura, Kyota</creator><creator>Abe, Takeru</creator><creator>Takeuchi, Ichiro</creator><creator>Morimura, Naoto</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2874-7731</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3162-7765</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3496-1953</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design</title><author>Yamaguchi, Keishi ; Doi, Tomoki ; Muguruma, Takashi ; Nakajima, Kento ; Nakamura, Kyota ; Abe, Takeru ; Takeuchi, Ichiro ; Morimura, Naoto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c395t-f3c0240f222afd576e0e1f22917bc15ac3f5a4987b45656998f7b4a718f998493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Cross-Over Studies</topic><topic>Fluid Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Haemorrhagic shock</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hypovolemic shock</topic><topic>Infusion with a syringe</topic><topic>Initial infusion</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Resuscitation - methods</topic><topic>Shock</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yamaguchi, Keishi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doi, Tomoki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muguruma, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakajima, Kento</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakamura, Kyota</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abe, Takeru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takeuchi, Ichiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morimura, Naoto</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Australian critical care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yamaguchi, Keishi</au><au>Doi, Tomoki</au><au>Muguruma, Takashi</au><au>Nakajima, Kento</au><au>Nakamura, Kyota</au><au>Abe, Takeru</au><au>Takeuchi, Ichiro</au><au>Morimura, Naoto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design</atitle><jtitle>Australian critical care</jtitle><addtitle>Aust Crit Care</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>66</spage><epage>71</epage><pages>66-71</pages><issn>1036-7314</issn><eissn>1878-1721</eissn><abstract>Initial fluid resuscitation is presumed to be important for treating shock in the resuscitation phase. However, little is known how quickly and easily a physician could perform a rapid infusion with a syringe.
We hypothesised that using a high-flow three-way stopcock (HTS) makes initial fluid resuscitation faster and easier than using a normal-flow three-way stopcock (NTS).
This was a simulation study with a prospective, nonblinded randomised crossover design. Twenty physicians were randomly assigned into two groups. Each participant used six peripheral intravenous infusion circuits, three with the HTS and the others with the NTS, and three cannulae, 22, 20, and 18 gauge (G). The first group started with the HTS first, while the other started with the NTS first. They were asked to inject the fluid as quick as possible. We compared the time until the participants finished rapid infusions of 500 ml of 0.9% saline and the practitioner's effort.
In infusion circuits attached with the 22G cannula, the mean difference using the HTS and the NTS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 16.30 ml/min (7.65–24.94) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 20G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 23.47 (12.43–34.51) (p < 0.01). In those attached with the 18G cannula, the mean difference (95% CI) was 42.53 (28.68–56.38) (p < 0.01).
This study revealed that the push-and-pull technique using the HTS was faster, easier, and less tiresome than using the NTS, with a statistically significant difference. In the resuscitation phase, initial and faster infusion is important. If only a single physician or other staff member such as a nurse is attending or does not have accessibility to any other devices in such an environment where medical resources are scarce, performing the push-and-pull technique using the HTS could help a physician to perform fluid resuscitation faster. By setting up the HTS instead of the NTS from the beginning, we would be able to begin fluid resuscitation immediately while preparing other devices.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33926788</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.aucc.2021.01.008</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2874-7731</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3162-7765</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3496-1953</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1036-7314 |
| ispartof | Australian critical care, 2022-01, Vol.35 (1), p.66-71 |
| issn | 1036-7314 1878-1721 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2520882020 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Cross-Over Studies Fluid Therapy - methods Haemorrhagic shock Humans Hypovolemic shock Infusion with a syringe Initial infusion Prospective Studies Resuscitation - methods Shock Trauma |
| title | A simulation study of high-flow versus normal-flow three-way stopcock for rapid fluid administration in emergency situations: A randomised crossover design |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T14%3A39%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20simulation%20study%20of%20high-flow%20versus%20normal-flow%20three-way%20stopcock%20for%20rapid%20fluid%20administration%20in%20emergency%20situations:%20A%C2%A0randomised%20crossover%20design&rft.jtitle=Australian%20critical%20care&rft.au=Yamaguchi,%20Keishi&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=66&rft.epage=71&rft.pages=66-71&rft.issn=1036-7314&rft.eissn=1878-1721&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.01.008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2520882020%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2520882020&rft_id=info:pmid/33926788&rft_els_id=S1036731421000321&rfr_iscdi=true |