Prospective comparison between a peristaltic pump and vacuum containers for paracentesis: Time, resources and safety.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To meet the increasing demand for radiology departments to perform paracenteses, this study was done to compare the operational, financial and clinical impact of draining ascites with a peristaltic pump versus conventional vacuum containers. MATERIALS & METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 157 paracenteses (56 subjects) drained with ACCEL® evacuated drainage bottles (B. Braun Interventional Systems, Bethlehem, PA) and 159 paracenteses (53 subjects) drained with the RenovaRP® pump (Laborie Medical Technologies Corp., Portsmouth, NH). A short elective questionnaire was then distributed to the procedure staff and the subjects drained by both methods. RESULTS: Mean volume drained with the pump (5 L) was comparable to that drained by vacuum containers (4.9 L, p = 0.77). Mean time to drain subjects with the pump (18.6 min) was 9.1 min shorter and 3.8 min less variable than subjects drained with vacuum containers (27.7 min). This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01) and clinically important (effect size = 0.73). Flow rate with the pump (4 min/L) was significantly faster (p < 0.05) than vacuum containers flow rate (6.6 min/L). No adverse events occurred in either group. Use of the pump increased the average cost by 21% and reduced earnings by 3%. All assistants (n = 6) and patients (n = 10) that responded to the questionnaire recommended the use of the pump over vacuum containers. CONCLUSION: The peristaltic pump safely drains ascites significantly faster and with less variability in time than vacuum containers. While use of the pump slightly increases cost per paracentesis, it was recommended by all paired subjects undergoing a paracentesis and all personnel assisting in the procedure.

Challenges, Barriers, and Successes of Standardized Report Templates: Results of a Society of Interventional Radiology Survey.

Registry data are being increasingly used to establish treatment guidelines, set benchmarks, allocate resources, and make payment decisions. Although many registries rely on manual data entry, the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) is using automated data extraction for its VIRTEX registry. This process relies on participants using consistent terminology with highly structured data in physician-developed standardized reports (SR). To better understand barriers to adoption, a survey was sent to 3,178 SIR members. Responses were obtained from 451 interventional radiology practitioners (14.2%) from 92 unique academic and 151 unique private practices. Of these, 75% used structured reports and 32% used the SIR SR. The most common barriers to the use of these reports include SR length (35% of respondents), lack of awareness about the SR (31%), and lack of agreement on adoption within practices (27%). The results demonstrated insights regarding barriers in the use and/or adoption of SR and potential solutions.