Abstract
Introduction: Pericardiocentesis is a potentially life-saving procedure. We compared two
low-cost models—an agar-based model and a novel model, Centesys—in terms of
ultrasound image quality and realism, effectiveness of the model, and learners’ confidence
and satisfaction after training.
Methods: In this pilot randomised 2x2 crossover trial stratified by physician seniority,
participants were assigned to undergo pericardiocentesis training either with the agar-based
or Centesys model first, followed by the other model. Participants were asked to rate their
confidence in performing ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, clarity and realism of
cardiac structures on ultrasound imaging, and satisfaction on a 7-point Likert scale before
and after training with each model.
Results: Twenty participants with median postgraduate year of 4 (interquartile range
[IQR] 3.75–6) years were recruited. Pre-training, participants rated themselves a median
score of 2.5 (IQR 2–4) for level of confidence in performing pericardiocentesis,
which improved to 5 (IQR 4–6) post-training with Centesys (P=0.007). Centesys was
recognised to be more realistic in simulating cardiac anatomy on ultrasound (median 5
[IQR 4–5] versus 3.5 [IQR 3–4], P=0.002) than the agar-based model. There was
greater satisfaction with Centesys (median 5 [IQR 5–6] versus 4 [IQR 3.75–4],
P<0.001). All 20 participants achieved successful insertion of a pericardial drain into
the simulated pericardial sac with Centesys.
Conclusion: Centesys achieved greater learner satisfaction as compared to the agar-based
model, and was an effective tool for teaching ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis and
drain insertion.
Keywords: Cardiac tamponade, emergency medicine, medical education, pericardial
effusion, ultrasonography
Low Cost, Environment-friendly Ultrasound Phantom for Ultrasound-guided Regional Anesthesia: A Novel Model
