Randomized Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Placement Versus Traditional Techniques in Difficult-Access Pediatric Patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Doniger ◽  
Paul Ishimine ◽  
John Christian Fox ◽  
John T. Kanegaye
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Catheter Placement ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

scholarly journals Routine Replacement versus Clinical Monitoring of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters in a Regional Hospital in the Home Program A Randomized Controlled Trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 915-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Van Donk ◽  
Claire M. Rickard ◽  
Matthew R. McGrail ◽  
Glenn Doolan
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Clinical Indication ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Home Setting ◽  
Home Program ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Intravenous Catheters

This randomized, controlled trial involving 316 patients in the home setting found no difference in the rate of phlebitis and/or occlusion among patients for whom a peripheral intravenous catheter was routinely resited at 72-96 hours and those for whom it was replaced only on clinical indication (76.8 events per 1,000 device-days vs 87.3 events per 1,000 device-days; P = .71). There were no bloodstream infections.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheters insertion in patient with difficult vascular access: Short axis/out-of-plane versus long axis/in-plane, a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982110069
Author(s):  
Daniele Privitera ◽  
Annamaria Mazzone ◽  
Federico Pierotti ◽  
Chiara Airoldi ◽  
Alessandro Galazzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Short Axis ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ultrasound Technique ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Local Complications ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of successful peripheral cannulation between short-axis and long-axis ultrasound guided techniques. Methods: A single-center, two-arm randomized controlled, intention-to-treat, open-label study was conducted at the Emergency Department, between August and November 2020. Patients requiring a peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and identified as having a difficult intravascular access, were enrolled and followed for up to 96 h. The primary endpoint was the correct placement of the peripheral intravenous catheter. The secondary endpoints were number of venipunctures, intra-procedural pain, local complications, and positive blood return during the follow up. Results: A total of 283 patients were enrolled: 141 subjects were randomized to the short-axis and 142 to the long-axis group. Success rate was 96.45% (135/141; 95% CI, 91.92%–98.84%) in the short-axis group compared with 92.25% (132/142; 95% CI, 86.56%–96.07%) in the long-axis group ( p = 0.126). No significant differences were found in terms of intraprocedural pain and local complications. Higher rate of positive blood return at 72 h [3/17 long-axis, 14/17 short-axis ( p = 0.005)] and 96 h [1/10 long-axis, 9/10 short-axis 96 h, ( p = 0.022)] was found for the short-axis group. Conclusions: No differences were found between short-axis and long-axis techniques in terms of success rate, intraprocedural pain, and local complications. Despite this, a slightly higher success rate, a lower number of venipunctures, and a higher rate of positive blood return at 72 and 96 h together with an easier ultrasound technique could suggest a short-axis approach.

scholarly journals Risk Factors for Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure: A Multivariate Analysis of Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne C. Wallis ◽  
Matthew McGrail ◽  
Joan Webster ◽  
Nicole Marsh ◽  
John Gowardman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Intravenous Catheter ◽  
Antecubital Fossa ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

Objective.To assess the relative importance of independent risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) failure.Methods.Secondary data analysis from a randomized controlled trial of PIVC dwell time. The Prentice, Williams, and Peterson statistical model was used to identify and compare risk factors for phlebitis, occlusion, and accidental removal.Setting.Three acute care hospitals in Queensland, Australia.Participants.The trial included 3,283 adult medical and surgical patients (5,907 catheters) with a PIVC with greater than 4 days of expected use.Results.Modifiable risk factors for occlusion included hand, antecubital fossa, or upper arm insertion compared with forearm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28–1.68], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.08–1.49], and 1.25 [95% CI, 1.04–1.50], respectively); and for phlebitis, larger diameter PIVC (HR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.08–2.03]). PIVCs inserted by the operating and radiology suite staff had lower occlusion risk than ward insertions (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67–0.94]). Modifiable risks for accidental removal included hand or antecubital fossa insertion compared with forearm (HR, 2.45 [95% CI, 1.93–3.10] and 1.65 [95% CI, 1.23–2.22], respectively), clinical staff insertion compared with intravenous service (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.30–2.20]); and smaller PIVC diameter (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.02–1.61]). Female sex was a nonmodifiable factor associated with an increased risk of both phlebitis (HR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.28–2.09]) and occlusion (HR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30–1.61]).Conclusions.PIVC survival is improved by preferential forearm insertion, selection of appropriate PIVC diameter, and insertion by intravenous teams and other specialists.Trial Registration.The original randomized controlled trial on which this secondary analysis is based is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au; ACTRN12608000445370).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document