Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros












Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Infus Nurs ; 47(3): 190-199, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38744244

RESUMO

This study aimed to compare patients' experience of pain during ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venipuncture versus conventional peripheral venipuncture. This randomized clinical trial was conducted at a public university hospital in 2021. Adult patients with indication for intravenous therapy compatible with peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) were included: intervention group (IG), US peripheral venipuncture executed by specialist nurses; control group (CG), conventional peripheral venipuncture executed by clinical practice nurses. The primary outcome was patient experience of pain during the procedure and patient experience related to the PIVC placement method. Sixty-four patients were included, 32 for each group. The pain experienced was none-to-mild in the IG for 25 patients (78.1%) and moderate-to-severe in the CG for 21 patients (65.7%; P < .001). The overall pain rating was 2 (1-3) in the IG and 4 (3-6) in the CG (P < .001). The recommendation of the procedure in IG (net promoter score [NPS] + 90.6%) versus CG (NPS + 18.8%) was considered excellent and good, respectively (P < .001). Patients had less pain and significantly recommended the US-guided procedure. Patient experience with US-guided PIVC, performed by a specialist nurse, was superior to that of conventional peripheral venipuncture.


Assuntos
Flebotomia , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Flebotomia/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cateterismo Periférico/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Medição da Dor , Dor/prevenção & controle , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Idoso
2.
J Vasc Access ; : 11297298231162132, 2023 Mar 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36971377

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is the most common invasive procedure in the hospital setting. Ultrasound guided PIVC insertion in specific populations and settings has shown patient care benefits. OBJECTIVE: To compare the success rate of first attempts of ultrasound guided PIVC insertion performed by nurse specialists with conventional PIVC insertion performed by nurse assistants. METHOD: Randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trial registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform under registration NTC04853264, conducted at a public university hospital from June to September 2021. Adult patients hospitalized in clinical inpatient units with an indication for intravenous therapy compatible with a peripheral venous network were included. Participants in the intervention group (IG) received ultrasound guided PIVC performed by nurse specialists from the vascular access team, while those in the control group (CG) received conventional PIVC by nurse assistants. RESULTS: The study included a total of 166 patients: IG (n = 82) and CG (n = 84), mean age 59.5 ± 16.5 years, mostly women (n = 104, 62.7%) and white (n = 136, 81.9%). Success rate on the first attempt of PIVC insertion in IG was 90.2% and in CG was 35.7% (p < 0.001), with a relative risk of 2.5 (95% CI 1.88-3.40) for success in IG versus CG. Overall assertiveness rate was 100% in IG and 71.4% in CG. Regarding procedure performance time, the medians in IG and CG were 5 (4-7) and 10 (6-27.5) min respectively (p < 0.001). As for the incidence of negative composite outcomes, IG had lower rates compared to CG, 39% versus 66.7% (p < 0.001), generating a 42% lower probability of negative outcomes in IG, 0.58 (95% CI: 0.43-0.80). CONCLUSION(S): Successful first-try insertion was higher in the group receiving ultrasound-guided PIVC. Moreover, there were no insertion failures and IG presented lower insertion time rates and incidence of unfavorable outcomes.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...