Artigo no prelo (in press)
A Randomized Control Trial of MuST for Vascular Access Cannulation in Hemodialysis Patients: Contributions for a Safe Nursing Intervention
Ricardo Peralta (Peralta, R.); Rafaela Rocha (Rafaela Rocha); Ana Sofia Dias (Ana Sofia Dias); Susana da Cruz Martins (Martins, SC); João Fazendeiro Matos (Fazendeiro, J.); Pedro Ponce (Ponce, P.); Ana Bernardo (Ana Bernardo); Anna Wammi (Wammi, A); Manuela Stauss-Grabo (Manuela Stauss-Grabo); Stefano Stuard (Stefano Stuard); Marjelka Trkulja (Marjelka Trkulja); Helena Carvalho (Carvalho, H.); Oscar Dias (Dias, O.); Filipe Cristóvão (Filipe Cristóvão); et al.
Título Revista
Kidney Medicine
Língua
Inglês
País
--
Mais Informação
--
Web of Science®

Esta publicação não está indexada na Web of Science®

Scopus

Esta publicação não está indexada na Scopus

Google Scholar

Esta publicação não está indexada no Google Scholar

Esta publicação não está indexada no Overton

Abstract/Resumo
Rationale & Objective Preservation and maintenance of a complication-free arteriovenous fistula (AVF) remains significant challenge. An adequate cannulation technique and successful puncture are critical for preserving AVF and ensuring patient safety. The study investigated whether the Multiple Single Cannulation Technique (MuST) leads to improved AVF survival and a lower complication rate compared to the rope-ladder technique (RL). Study Design The MuST study was a multicenter, prospective, non-blind, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. Setting & Participants A total of 101 patients received hemodialysis in 3 peripheral units, 49 patients have been assigned to the MuST group and 52 to the control group. Intervention The intervention group received MuST, while the control group underwent RL, with both groups followed for period of 12 months Outcomes The primary outcome was to evaluate the AVF survival rate at 12 months, defined as unassisted patency. The secondary outcome included the assessment of assisted primary patency, complication rates, and pain perception. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the MuST and RL techniques in unassisted patency (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.38, 2.71, p = 0.98) or in assisted patency (HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.37, 1.47, p = 0.39). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of haematoma or thrombosis, and no infections occurred during the study period. The MuST presented an advantage over RL in the development and new aneurysms formation. There were no significant differences observed in pain perception between the two cannulation techniques. Limitations The sample size was smaller than expected due to limitations in the selection of patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic phase. Conclusions We could not definitively demonstrate a difference in AVF survival between MuST and RL. The low incidence of AVF thrombosis in both techniques shows that MuST can be a choice in patient safety and well-being when nursing teams decide which cannulation technique to perform.
Agradecimentos/Acknowledgements
--
Palavras-chave
  • Medicina Clínica - Ciências Médicas
  • Ciências da Saúde - Ciências Médicas

Com o objetivo de aumentar a investigação direcionada para o cumprimento dos Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável para 2030 das Nações Unidas, é disponibilizada no Ciência_Iscte a possibilidade de associação, quando aplicável, dos artigos científicos aos Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Estes são os Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável identificados pelo(s) autor(es) para esta publicação. Para uma informação detalhada dos Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável, clique aqui.