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.