MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2988276663 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.4683.4683

“Painless” Bone Marrow Aspiration by Slow Suctioning Does Not Affect Peripheral Blood Contamination of the Specimen: Randomized Prospective Crossover Trials

2008· article· en· W2988276663 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuki Asano‐Mori, Shin‐ichiro Mori, Toshimitsu Ueki, Miwa Sakai, Takuya Yamashita, Kazuteru Ohashi, Hideki Akiyama, Hisashi Sakamaki

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHematological disorders and diagnostics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSyringeCrossover studyAnesthesiaSurgeryRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleSuctionPulmonary aspirationPlacebo

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The pain during bone marrow aspiration (BMA) can be best explained by negative pressure inside the bone marrow cavity. Although most standard textbooks recommend rapid suctioning with high negative pressure to minimize peripheral blood contamination, this technique might be associated with more pain. To date, there is no evidence that rapid suctioning can reduce peripheral blood contamination. To find a technique that reduces pain without loss of specimen quality, we conducted two trials. The first was a randomized, crossover trial comparing slow aspiration with low negative pressure (L method) and rapid aspiration with high negative pressure (H method). To evaluate pain during the procedure, 49 patients with hematological malignancy who required BMA more than once were randomly assigned to receive either the first aspiration by the L method and the second by the H method or vice versa. Under local anesthesia, a 16-gauge BMA needle was inserted into the BM cavity. A 1-mL syringe (L method) or a 30-mL syringe (H method) was used to aspirate 0.5 mL of BM fluid. To ensure accuracy of aspiration volume in the H method, an extension tube was connected between the 30-mL syringe and needle, and clamped by forceps when the aspirated volume reached 0.5 mL. Pain during each procedure was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS), verbal descriptor scale (VDS), and McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ). In the first trial, repeated measures one-way analysis of variance design was used for serial measurement of pain, and the one-tailed Wilcoxon’s test was used to compare pain between the two groups. The second trial compared aspirate quality between the L and H methods. Sixteen allogeneic transplantation donors (median age, 33.5 years; range, 22 to 62 years), underwent the first puncture of the harvest procedure under general anesthesia. BMA was drawn simultaneously from the right and left posterior iliac crest with a 1-mL and a 30-mL syringe; the aspiration side and syringe size were randomized. Nucleated cell counts (NCC) of the BM specimens were determined by automated hematology analyses. The non-inferiority margin was defined as less than 25% on the basis of the absolute difference of NCC between the L and H methods. In the first trial, 34 of the 49 patients (67%; 21 men and 13 women; median age, 49 years; age range, 17 to 77 years) completed the study and provided VAS, VDS and MPQ score data after two consecutive BMA. Present pain intensity (PPI) score of the MPQ was significantly decreased with L method when compared with H method (median absolute difference 0, P=0.037) (Table 1). VAS score and total pain rating index (PRI) of the MPQ were also lower with the L method (median absolute differences −0.6 and −0.5), although these results did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant ordinal interaction in repeated measurement of any scores except the affective-PRI of the MPQ, which was significantly higher at the first aspiration, regardless of the negative pressure intensity (P=0.024). In the second trial, the geometric mean of NCC with the L method was non-inferior to the mean with the H method (P=0.025) (Table 2). These findings indicated that BMA with low negative pressure tended to be less painful, while maintaining specimen quality. There remains difficulty in evaluating the impact of psychological factors on the results. Nonetheless, on the basis of our results we recommend suctioning slowly with low negative pressure using a small syringe in order to reduce pain during BMA. Table 1 L method H method P-value median (range) median (range) VDS 1 (0 to 3) 1 (0 to 3) 0.212 VAS 2.2 (0 to 8.4) 3.2 (0 to 9.0) 0.055 MPQ PRI-S 3 (0 to 16) 4 (0 to 30) 0.080 PRI-A 0 (0 to 7) 0 (0 to 9) 0.192 PRI-E 0 (0 to 4) 0 (0 to 4) 0.414 F’RI-M 2 (0 to 11) 3 (0 to 11) 0.093 PRI-T 6 (0 to 32) 7.5 (0 to 53) 0.063 PPI 1 (0 to 4) 1 (0 to 5) 0.037 Table 2 L method H method P-value Genomic mean of NCC (×104/μL) (95%IC) 6.6 (4.6–9.5) 7.8 (5.9– 10.4) 0.025

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,291
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,951

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHematological disorders and diagnosticsTravaux en français237 207