Skip Navigation LinksHome > February 2014 - Volume 9 - Issue 1 > Central Venous Access by Trainees: A Systematic Review and M...
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare:
doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182a3df26
Empirical Investigations

Central Venous Access by Trainees: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Use of Simulation to Improve Success Rate on Patients

Madenci, Arin L. AB; Solis, Carolina V. MD; de Moya, Marc A. MD

Supplemental Author Material
Collapse Box

Abstract

Introduction

Simulation training for invasive procedures may improve patient safety by enabling efficient training. This study is a meta-analysis with rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria designed to assess the real patient procedural success of simulation training for central venous access.

Methods

Published randomized controlled trials and prospective 2-group cohort studies that used simulation for the training of procedures involving central venous access were identified. The quality of each study was assessed. The primary outcome was the proportion of trainees who demonstrated the ability to successfully complete the procedure. Secondary outcomes included the mean number of attempts to procedural success and periprocedural adverse events. Proportions were compared between groups using risk ratios (RRs), whereas continuous variables were compared using weighted mean differences. Random-effects analysis was used to determine pooled effect sizes.

Results

We identified 550 studies, of which 5 (3 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective 2-group cohort studies) studies of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion were included in the meta-analysis, composed of 407 medical trainees. The simulation group had a significantly larger proportion of trainees who successfully placed CVCs (RR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.16, P < 0.01). In addition, the simulation group had significantly fewer mean attempts to CVC insertion (weighted mean difference, −1.42; 95% CI, −2.34 to −0.49, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events between the groups (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19–1.29; P = 0.15).

Conclusions

Training programs should consider adopting simulation training for CVC insertion to improve the real patient procedural success of trainees.

Copyright © 2014 Society for Simulation in Healthcare

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.