Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheter Placement Techniques Using an Easily Made Simulator Model.

OBJECTIVES: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement is an important procedure which is frequently performed in the emergency department (ED) and can cause serious complications. The aim of this study is to introduce a simulation-based tissue model for ultrasound (US)-guided central venous access practices and to compare the effectiveness of static and dynamic US techniques through this model. METHODS: This was a prospective study on US-guided CVC placement techniques simulated with a chicken tissue model. This model is based on the principle of placing two cylindrical balloons filled with colored water (red for arterial and blue for venous) between a raw chicken breast and wrapping the formed structure with plastic wrap. The study was conducted in an academic tertiary care hospital with Emergency Medicine (EM) residents who have received basic US training, including vascular access procedures. All participants performed simulated CVC placement procedures with both static and dynamic US techniques. At the end of the study, the practitioners were asked to rate usefulness of these techniques between one and ten (one was the lowest and ten was the highest score). RESULTS: A total of 32 EM residents were included in the study. Their median age was 29 (IQR = 27 - 31) years and 72% of them were male. Their median duration in ED was 19 (IQR = 12 - 34) months. According to the results of simulated CVC placement procedures, there was no significant difference between the static and dynamic US techniques in terms of puncture numbers, procedure durations, and success rates. However, according to the usefulness scores given by the practitioners, the dynamic US technique was found to be more useful (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The chicken tissue model is a convenient tool for simulating US-guided CVC placement procedures. The dynamic US technique is considered to be more useful in this field than the static technique, but the results of practitioner-dependent practices may not always support this generalization.