Comparison of Standard Technique, Ultrasonography, and Near-Infrared Light in Difficult Peripheral Vascular Access: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridCan, Özge/0000-0003-3220-5994
dc.authoridYalçınlı, Sercan/0000-0003-1780-8391
dc.authorscopusid57369447500
dc.authorscopusid35789631500
dc.authorscopusid57190797632
dc.authorscopusid55791875200
dc.authorscopusid57370182400
dc.authorwosidCan, Özge/GVS-4068-2022
dc.authorwosidYalçınlı, Sercan/ABG-2186-2020
dc.contributor.authorYalcinli, Sercan
dc.contributor.authorKarbek Akarca, Funda
dc.contributor.authorCan, Ozge
dc.contributor.authorUz, Ilhan
dc.contributor.authorKonakci, Gulbin
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-12T19:58:33Z
dc.date.available2023-01-12T19:58:33Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentN/A/Departmenten_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Successful placement of a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) on the first attempt is an important outcome for difficult vascular access (DVA) patients. This study compared standard technique, ultrasonography (USG), and near-infrared light (NIR) in terms of success in the first attempt in patients with DVA. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. The study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Emergency department patients who describe DVA history, have no visible or palpable veins, and were assessed by the nurse to have a difficult PIVC were included to study. The PIVC procedure was performed on patients by standard, USG, or NIR device techniques. For all approaches, the success of the first attempt was the primary aim. Total procedure time, the total number of attempts, and the need for rescue intervention were secondary aims. Results: This study evaluated 270 patients. The first attempt success rates for USG, standard, and NIR methods were 78.9%, 62.2%, and 58.9%, respectively. The rate of first attempt success was higher in patients who underwent USG (USG versus standard, P = .014; USG versus NIR, P = .004; standard versus NIR, P = .648). The total median (IQR) procedure time for USG, standard, and NIR methods was 107 (69-228), 72 (47-134), and 82 (61-163) seconds, respectively. The total procedure time was longer in patients undergoing USG (standard versus USG, P <.001; NIR versus USG, P = .035; standard versus NIR, P = .055). The total median (IQR) number of attempts of USG, standard, and NIR methods were 1 (1-1), 1 (1-2), and 1 (1-2), respectively. A difference was found among the groups regarding the total number of attempts (USG versus NIR, P = .015; USG versus standard P = .108; standard versus NIR, P = .307). No difference was found among groups in terms of the need for rescue methods. Conclusion: It was found that USG increases the success of the first attempt compared with the standard method and NIR in patients with DVA.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEge University Planning and Monitoring Coordination of Organizational Development; Directorate of Library and Documentationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors are grateful to Ege University Planning and Monitoring Coordination of Organizational Development and Directorate of Library and Documentation for their support in editing and proofreading service of this study.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S1049023X21001217
dc.identifier.endpage70en_US
dc.identifier.issn1049-023X
dc.identifier.issn1945-1938
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid34865664en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85124850433en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage65en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21001217
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/76944
dc.identifier.volume37en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000727519700001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCambridge Univ Pressen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPrehospital and Disaster Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectcatheterizationen_US
dc.subjectperipheralen_US
dc.subjectemergency medicineen_US
dc.subjectemergency nursingen_US
dc.subjectspectroscopyen_US
dc.subjectnear-infrareden_US
dc.subjectultrasonographyen_US
dc.subjectinterventionalen_US
dc.subjectIntravenous Cannulationen_US
dc.subjectUltrasound-Guidanceen_US
dc.subjectEmergency-Departmenten_US
dc.subjectVein Cannulationen_US
dc.subjectPlacementen_US
dc.subjectInterventionsen_US
dc.subjectMetaanalysisen_US
dc.subjectEfficacyen_US
dc.titleComparison of Standard Technique, Ultrasonography, and Near-Infrared Light in Difficult Peripheral Vascular Access: A Randomized Controlled Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu