Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venipuncture Decreases the Procedure's Pain and Positively Impacts Patient's Experience: The PRECISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Versus Centrally Inserted Central Catheter for In-Hospital Infusion Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). METHODS: Prospective cohort study was followed by an economic analysis over a 30-day time horizon. Propensity score matching was used to select hospitalized adults with similar indications for PICC or CICC. The composite outcome was device removal or replacement because of complications before the end of treatment. The economic evaluation was based on a decision tree model for cost-effectiveness analysis, with calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per catheter removal avoided. All costs are presented in Brazilian reais (BRL) (1 BRL = 0.1870 US dollar). RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were followed in each group; 172 (79.3%) of those receiving a PICC and 135 (62.2%) of those receiving a CICC had no device-related complication, respectively. When comparing the events leading to device removal, the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the CICC group (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.11-0.35). The cost of PICC placement was BRL 1290.98 versus BRL 467.16 for a CICC. In the base case, the ICER for placing a PICC instead of a CICC was BRL 3349.91 per removal or replacement avoided. On univariate sensitivity analyses, the model proved to be robust within an ICER range of 2500.00 to 4800.00 BRL. CONCLUSIONS: PICC placement was associated with a lower risk of complications than CICC placement. Although the cost of a PICC is higher, its use avoided complications and need for catheter replacement before the end of treatment.

UltraSound guided PEripheral Catheterization increases first-atTempt success RAte in hospitalized patients when compared with conventional technique: SPECTRA - Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.