Novel Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Securement for Children and Catheter Failure Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) facilitate essential treatment. Failure of these essential devices is frequent and new securement strategies may reduce failure and improve patient outcomes. Objective: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of novel PIVC securement technologies for children to reduce catheter failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-arm, parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 regional Australian hospitals from February 5, 2020, to January 14, 2022. Children aged 6 months to 8 years who were anticipated to require admission with a PIVC for at least 24 hours of in hospital treatment were eligible. Data were analyzed from May 25, 2022, to February 20, 2024. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard care, bordered polyurethane (Tegaderm [3M]), integrated securement dressing (SorbaView SHIELD [Medline]), and integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (Secureport IV). One catheter was studied per patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PIVC failure, defined as premature cessation of PIVC function for any reason prior to completion of planned treatment. Secondary outcomes were PIVC complications (any time dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, partial dislodgement, extravasation, device leaking, phlebitis, pain), PIVC longevity, intervention acceptability (clinicians, participants, caregivers; 0-10 scale), and pain on removal (participants and caregivers; 0-10 scale relevant to age), adverse events, and health care costs. Results: A total of 383 patients (51% female; median age 36 [25th-75th percentiles, 22-72] months) were randomized 134 to standard care, 118 to integrated securement dressing, and 131 to integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive. PIVC failure was lowest in integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (15 [12%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) compared with integrated securement dressing (24 [21%]; aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.28) and standard care (43 [34%]). Direct costs were significantly lower for integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (median, Australian dollars [A$], 312 [A$1 is equal to $0.65 US dollars]; IQR, A$302-A$380) and integrated securement dressing (median, A$303; IQR, A$294-A$465) compared with standard care (median, A$341; IQR, A$297-A$592; P ≤ .002) when considering the economic burden related to failure of devices. PIVC longevity and intervention acceptability were similar across all groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, PIVCs secured with integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive, in comparison with standard care, bordered polyurethane dressings, were associated with significantly reduced PIVC failure, for children admitted to hospital via the emergency department. Further research should focus on implementation in inpatient units where prolonged dwell and reliable intravenous access is most needed. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12619001026112.

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.

Status of Phlebitis in South Korean Hospitals: Focusing on Electronic Incident Reporting Systems.

Peripheral venous catheterization (PVC) is the most commonly used invasive technique, and its importance to patient safety is increasing. And phlebitis is a common complication which can lead to increased costs and extended hospital stays. This study attempted to characterize the current status of phlebitis based on incident reports in the Korea Patient Safety Reporting & Learning System. This retrospective descriptive study analysed 259 phlebitis cases reported in that system from 1 July 2017 to 31 December 2019. The analysis results were summarized using numbers and percentages or means with standard deviations. Among the reported phlebitis cases, antibiotics and high-osmolarity fluids comprised 48.2% of the intravenous inflammatory drugs used. All reported cases presented blood-flow infections. Insufficient observation or management was the most common cause of phlebitis. It was found that interventions for phlebitis were inconsistent with those recommended in evidence-based guidelines. Recommendations for nurses to alleviate complications in PVC must be promoted and educated. It is necessary to provide feedback from the incident reports analysis.

Educating health professionals in ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous cannulation: A systematic review of teaching methods, competence assessment, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous cannula insertion is the most common invasive healthcare procedure, however failure rates remain unacceptably high, particularly in patients with difficult intravascular access. This leads to treatment delays and increased complication risk, causing poorer outcomes among this patient subset. Ultrasonographic guidance reduces these risks and is therefore becoming a competency required of health professionals. However, there is no consensus on how to design teaching sessions to achieve this competency. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted to identify characteristics of effective teaching sessions for current and training health professions to achieve ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous cannulation competency. Secondary outcomes included defining competency and to assess benefits to patients and healthcare systems. Eligibility for inclusion required description of teaching of ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous cannulation to qualified or training health professionals who went on to perform it in human patients or volunteers with reported outcomes or success rates. Studies were excluded if not accessible in full, not peer-reviewed or presented research that had been presented elsewhere previously. Of the 1085 records identified on review of 6 databases, 35 were included for final review based on eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Almost all (97.1%) used mixed modality teaching comprising of didactic and simulation portions, although time allocated varied widely. A median of 5 proctored procedures was required for competency. Competency was independent of previous experience or staff seniority. Mean reported insertion attempts was 1.7, success rate was 82.5% and first-time success rate was 75.5%. All included studies described improvement in their participants or healthcare system including significantly reduced midline insertion rates, central venous catheter insertion rates and associated bacteremia and sepsis, self-reported cannulation difficulty, specialist input, therapy delays and premature catheter failure rates. Further, there was significantly improved procedural confidence, knowledge and competence. CONCLUSION: Simple teaching interventions can lead to competent ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous cannula insertion by novices, resulting in numerous positive outcomes for patients and healthcare systems.

Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One-third of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) fail from inflammatory or infectious complications, causing substantial treatment interruption and replacement procedures. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare complications between integrated PIVCs (inbuilt extension sets, wings, and flattened bases) and traditional nonintegrated PIVCs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: A centrally randomized, controlled, superiority trial (with allocation concealment until study entry) was conducted in three Australian hospitals. Medical-surgical patients (one PIVC each) requiring intravenous therapy for >24 h were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was device failure (composite: occlusion, infiltration, phlebitis, dislodgement, local, or bloodstream infection). Infection endpoints were assessor-masked. The secondary outcomes were: failure type, first-time insertion success, tip colonization, insertion pain, dwell time, mortality, costs, health-related quality of life, clinician, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 1759 patients randomized (integrated PIVC, n = 881; nonintegrated PIVC, n = 878), 1710 (97%) received a PIVC and were in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (2269 PIVC-days integrated; 2073 PIVC-days nonintegrated). Device failure incidence was 35% (145 per 1000 device-days) nonintegrated, and 33% (124 per 1000 device-days) integrated PIVCs. INTERVENTION: Integrated PIVCs had a significantly lower failure risk (adjusted [sex, infection, setting, site, gauge] hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.69-0.96], p = .015). The per-protocol analysis was consistent (adjusted HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95], p = .010). Integrated PIVCs had significantly longer dwell (top quartile ≥ 95 vs. ≥84 h). Mean per-patient costs were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: PIVC failure is common and complex. Significant risk factors include sex, infection at baseline, care setting, insertion site, catheter gauge, and catheter type. Integrated PIVCs can significantly reduce the burden of PIVC failure on patients and the health system.

Ultrasound assessment of peripheral intravenous catheters by nurses in the pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Establish the feasibility of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) nurse-directed ultrasound assessment (UA) of peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters, compare the results of UA to traditional assessment (TA), and determine PIV survival after UA. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: PICU within a children's hospital. PATIENTS: PICU patients with a PIV. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eight nurses performed UA on 131 PIVs in 85 patients. Median age was 3.0 years (IQR 1.0-13.8) and median weight was 15.0 kg (IQR 9.6-59.3). The most common PIV location was the arm (43%) and extravasation occurred in 15% of PIVs. Agreement between TA and UA was moderate with a Kappa of 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.66). Nursing confidence in the UA was significantly higher than TA (92% vs 21% very confident, p < 0.0001). In 106 PIVs with a UA that indicated the PIV was intravascular (i.e. negative UA), the median survival was 50.0 h (IQR 21.8-100.3). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses can perform UA of PIV status in PICU patients and express greater confidence in the findings of UA than TA. Further study is necessary to determine the impact of UA on the rate of PIV complications.

Nurses' Involvement in the Development and Usability Assessment of an Innovative Peripheral Intravenous Catheterisation Pack: A Mix-Method Study.

Guaranteeing peripheral venous access is one of the cornerstones of modern healthcare. Recent evidence shows that the lack of adequate clinical devices can result in the provision of substandard care to patients who require peripheral intravenous catheterization (PIVC). To address this challenge, we aimed to develop a PIVC pack for adult patients and assess the usability of this new device. METHODS: Following a mix-method design, the PIVC pack development and usability assessment were performed in two phases with the involvement of its potential end-users (nurses). In phase one (concept and semi-functional prototype assessment), focus group rounds were conducted, and a usability assessment questionnaire was applied at each stage. In phase two (pre-clinical usability assessment), a two-arm crossover randomised controlled trial (PIVC pack versus traditional material) was conducted with nurses in a simulated setting. Final interviews were conducted to further explore the PIVC pack applicability in a real-life clinical setting. RESULTS: High average usability scores were identified in each study phase. During the pre-clinical usability assessment, the PIVC pack significantly reduced procedural time (Z = -2.482, p = 0.013) and avoided omissions while preparing the required material (Z = -1.977, p = 0.048). The participating nurses emphasised the pack's potential to standardise practices among professionals, improve adherence to infection control recommendations, and enhance stock management. CONCLUSIONS: The developed pack appears to be a promising device that can assist healthcare professionals in providing efficient and safe care to patients requiring a PIVC. Future studies in real clinical settings are warranted to test its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-utility analysis of centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) vs. peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the oncology chemotherapy.

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) are two types of intravenous infusion devices that are widely used in clinical practice. PORTs are more expensive to insert than PICCs but have fewer complications. Two cost-utility analyses of PICCs and PORTs in China have been published, but had conflicting findings. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of PICCs and PORTs. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational trial including 404 patients with cancer and a cross-sectional study to calculate cost and complications of a PICC and PORT. Utility was measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). A cost-utility analysis was performed from a healthcare system perspective in China. Results: The average total cost of PICCs and PORTs were ¥ 4,091.7 and ¥ 4,566.8, which yielded 0.46 and 0.475 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a 6-month dwell time, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was ¥ 31,670.9 per QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the base-case results were robust, and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥ 80,976 per QALY (China's per capita GDP in 2021) the probability of a PORT being cost-effective was 96%. Conclusion: PORTs were more cost-effective than PICCs for a 6 and 12-month dwell time. The total cost for a PORT was also less than that of a PICC. PORT is therefore recommended as a medium to long-term intravenous delivery device in clinical practice.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Access for Peripheral and Complex Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Benefits.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the safety, efficacy, and applicability of percutaneous axillary artery (pAxA) access in patients requiring upper extremity large sheath access during complex aortic, cardiac, and peripheral endovascular procedures. We also take this opportunity to address the potential cost-benefits offered by pAxA access compared to open upper extremity access. METHODS: A total of 26 consecutive patients, between June 2018 and October 2020, underwent endovascular intervention, requiring upper extremity access (UEA). Ultrasound-guided, percutaneous access of the axillary artery was used in all 26 patients with off-label use of pre-close technique with Perclose ProGlide closure devices. Access sites accommodated sheath sizes that ranged from 6 to 14 French (F). End points were technical success and access site-related complications including isolated neuropathies, hematoma, distal embolization, access-site thrombosis, and post-operative bleeding requiring secondary interventions. Technical success was defined as successful arterial closure intraoperatively with no evidence of stenosis, occlusion, or persistent bleeding, requiring additional intervention. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients requiring pAxA access, 15 underwent complex endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (EVAR) with branched, fenestrated, snorkel, or parallel endografts, 6 underwent peripheral vascular interventions, and 5 underwent cardiac interventions. Fifty-three percent accommodated sheath sizes of 12F or higher. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases with no major perioperative access complications requiring additional open or endovascular procedures. In our series, we had one post-operative mortality secondary to myocardial infarction in a patient with significant coronary artery disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our data again demonstrated the proposed safety and efficacy attributable to pAxA access, while extending its application to wide spectrum of endovascular interventions which included peripheral or coronary vascular in addition to complex EVAR.

Propensity-adjusted cost analysis of radial versus femoral access for neuroendovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND: Transradial artery (TRA) access for neuroendovascular procedures is associated with fewer complications than transfemoral artery (TFA) access. This study compares hospital costs associated with TRA access to those associated with TFA access for neurointerventions. METHODS: Elective neuroendovascular procedures at a single center were retrospectively analyzed from October 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019. Hospital costs for each procedure were obtained from the hospital financial department. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean hospital costs after propensity adjustment between patients who underwent TRA compared with TFA access. RESULTS: Of the 338 elective procedures included, 63 (19%) were performed through TRA versus 275 (81%) through TFA access. Diagnostic procedures were more common in the TRA cohort (51 of 63, 81%) compared with the TFA cohort (197 of 275, 72%), but the difference was not significant (p=0.48). The TRA cohort had a shorter length of hospital stay (mean (SD) 0.3 (0.5) days) compared with the TFA cohort (mean 0.7 (1.3) days; p=0.02) and lower hospital costs (mean $12 968 ($6518) compared with the TFA cohort (mean $17 150 ($10 946); p=0.004). After propensity adjustment for age, sex, symptoms, angiographic findings, procedure type, sheath size, and catheter size, TRA access was associated with a mean hospital cost of $2514 less than that for TFA access (95% CI -$4931 to -$97; p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Neuroendovascular procedures performed through TRA access are associated with lower hospital costs than TFA procedures. The lower cost is likely due to a decreased length of hospital stay for TRA.

A comparative assessment of Dorsal radial artery access versus classical radial artery access for percutaneous coronary angiography-a randomized control trial (DORA trial).

OBJECTIVES: This is an open-label randomized control trial with a parallel assignment with single masking comparing patients undergoing coronary angiography via dorsal radial and classical radial access. METHODS: Study done at three tertiary cardiac care centers for two years. A total of 970 patients were finally recruited for the study. Patients were randomly selected for dorsal radial artery access Group A (485 patients) and classical radial artery access Group B (485 patients) without any bias for age & sex. RESULTS: On comparative assessment both techniques are found to be equal in terms of procedural success rate. While dorsal access was superior in terms of fewer incidences of forearm radial artery occlusion, radial artery spasm, less post-procedure persistence of pain, and hand clumsiness. In comparison to this, the number of puncture attempts and time to achieve post-procedure hemostasis is less in classical radial access. CONCLUSION: So both techniques have pros and coins and it is the discretion of interventionists to adopt which technique.

Association of Infectious Disease Physician Approval of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter With Appropriateness and Complications.

Importance: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. Objective: To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Complications related to PICCs included catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, and central line-associated bloodstream infection. The association between infectious disease physician approval, device appropriateness, and catheter complications was assessed using multivariable models, adjusted for patient comorbidities and hospital clustering. Results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 21 653 PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobials (11 960 PICCs were placed in men [55.2%]; median age, 64.5 years [interquartile range, 53.4-75.4 years]); 10 238 PICCs (47.3%) were approved by an infectious disease physician prior to placement. Compared with PICCs with no documented approval, PICCs with approval by an infectious disease physician were more likely to be appropriately used (72.7% [7446 of 10 238] appropriate with approval vs 45.4% [5180 of 11 415] appropriate without approval; odds ratio, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.29-3.79; P < .001). Furthermore, approval was associated with lower odds of a PICC-related complication (6.5% [665 of 10 238] with approval vs 11.3% [1292 of 11 415] without approval; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that, when PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobial therapy, infectious disease physician approval of PICC insertion was associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for antimicrobials may improve patient safety.

Clinical outcomes of primary aldosteronism based on lateralization index and contralateral suppression index after adrenal venous sampling in real-world practice: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether the contralateral suppression index in aldosterone-producing adrenal adenoma could be used as a diagnostic criterion when catheterization in either right or left adrenal vein fails or when a discrepancy in the adrenal vein sampling (AVS) results and imaging findings occurs in the real-world practice. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 48 patients who had resistant hypertension (HTN) or hypokalemia with a biochemical diagnosis of primary aldosteronism and who underwent AVS from January 2009 to June 2017 at a tertiary referral hospital. Selection index (SI), lateralization index (LI), and contralateral suppression index (CSI) were calculated based on AVS results and the final clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The catheterization of both adrenal veins was successful in 43 of 48 (89.6%) patients. The lateralization based only on LI was performed in 23 out of 43 (53.5%) patients. When CSI and LI were combined in decision making, the concordance between adrenal computed tomography scan and AVS for unilateral lesion improved from 59.3% (19/32) to 75.0% (24/32). CSI also correlated well with unilateral adrenal disease in the catheterization failure group. The final outcomes of HTN were better in the contralateral suppression group. CONCLUSION: CSI combined with LI could be a supplementary diagnostic tool in patients with non-lateralization or catheterization failure and predict the clinical outcomes of HTN in patients with primary aldosteronism.

Application of preoperative assessment of pain induced by venous cannulation in predicting postoperative pain in patients under laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is the most prominent concern among surgical patients. It has previously been reported that venous cannulation-induced pain (VCP) can be used to predict postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 90 mins in the recovery room. Its potential in predicting postoperative pain in patients with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is worth establishing. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to investigate the application of VCP in predicting postoperative pain in patients with PCIA during the first 24 h after laparoscopic nephrectomy. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients scheduled for laparoscopic nephrectomy were included in this study. A superficial vein on the back of the hand was cannulated with a standard-size peripheral venous catheter (1.1 × 3.2 mm) by a nurse in the preoperative areas. Then the nurse recorded the VAS score associated with this procedure estimated by patients, and dichotomized the patients into low response group (VAS scores < 2.0) or high response group (VAS scores ≥2.0). After general anesthesia and surgery, all the patients received the patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with sufentanil. The VAS scores at rest and on coughing at 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, 24 h, the effective number of presses and the number of needed rescue analgesia within 24 h after surgery were recorded. RESULTS: Peripheral venous cannulation-induced pain score was significantly correlated with postoperative pain intensity at rest (rs = 0.64) and during coughing (rs = 0.65), effective times of pressing (rs = 0.59), additional consumption of sufentanil (rs = 0.58). Patients with venous cannulation-induced pain intensity ≥2.0 VAS units reported higher levels of postoperative pain intensity at rest (P < 0.0005) and during coughing (P < 0.0005), needed more effective times of pressing (P < 0.0005) and additional consumption of sufentanil (P < 0.0005), and also needed more rescue analgesia (P = 0.01) during the first 24 h. The odds of risk for moderate or severe postoperative pain (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3-9.3) was significantly higher in patients with venous cannulation-induced pain intensity ≥2.0 VAS units compared to those <2.0 VAS units. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative assessment of pain induced by venous cannulation can be used to predict postoperative pain intensity in patients with PCIA during the first 24 h after laparoscopic nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: We registered this study in a Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) center on July 6 2019 and received the registration number: ChiCTR1900024352.

The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: a clinimetric evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinimetric validation of the I-DECIDED tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and decision-making. DESIGN AND SETTING: I-DECIDED is an eight-step tool derived from international vascular access guidelines into a structured mnemonic for device assessment and decision-making. The clinimetric evaluation process was conducted in three distinct phases. METHODS: Initial face validity was confirmed with a vascular access working group. Next, content validity testing was conducted via online survey with vascular access experts and clinicians from Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada. Finally, inter-rater reliability was conducted between 34 pairs of assessors for a total of 68 peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) assessments. Assessments were timed to ensure feasibility, and the second rater was blinded to the first's findings. Content validity index (CVI), mean item-level CVI (I-CVI), internal consistency, mean proportion of agreement, observed and expected inter-rater agreements, and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappas (PABAK) were calculated. Ethics approvals were obtained from university and hospital ethics committees. RESULTS: The I-DECIDED tool demonstrated strong content validity among international vascular access experts (n=7; mean I-CVI=0.91; mean proportion of agreement=0.91) and clinicians (n=11; mean I-CVI=0.93; mean proportion of agreement=0.94), and high inter-rater reliability in seven adult medical-surgical wards of three Australian hospitals. Overall, inter-rater reliability was 87.13%, with PABAK for each principle ranging from 0.5882 ('patient education') to 1.0000 ('document the decision'). Time to complete assessments averaged 2 min, and nurse-reported acceptability was high. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive, evidence-based, valid and reliable PIVC assessment and decision tool. We recommend studies to evaluate the outcome of implementing this tool in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12617000067370.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Outcomes of 3 Types of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters.

BACKGROUND: There was an increase in peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) complications and adverse patient events after product conversion during the merger between a rural hospital and a larger hospital system. A review of the existing literature identified a gap in evidence evaluating 2 closed PIVC systems compared with an open PIVC system. PURPOSE: The purpose of the current project was to ascertain whether open or closed PIVCs are best for patients, staff, and the health care system in terms of 3 main criteria: quality, safety, and cost. METHODS: A prospective, 2-site randomized controlled trial was used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: There were no differences in the complication rates between catheter types. There was a statistically significant increase in blood leakage and a decrease in clinician satisfaction with the open-system catheter. CONCLUSIONS: Our project supports current clinical recommendation that a closed PIVC system, regardless of type, is not only safer and cost-effective but also preferred by patients and clinicians.

Intra-arterial catheter-directed CT angiography for assessment of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety as well as associated image quality of catheter-directed CT angiography (CCTA) with a low dose of iodine contrast agent compared to intravenous CTA in patients undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Retrospective data analysis of 92 patients undergoing EVAR between January 2009 and December 2017 was performed. Patients were divided in two groups; those receiving CTA (n = 59) after intravenous contrast agent application and those receiving CCTA (n = 33) via an intraarterial catheter placed in the descending aorta. Demographic and cardiovascular risk factors as well as renal function parameters before, immediately after and 6-60 months after EVAR were evaluated. As primary endpoint, changes in serum creatinine levels in the two groups were evaluated. Secondary endpoints encompassed complications associated with intraarterial catheter placement. Objective (signal-to-noise ratios) and subjective image quality (5-point Likert scale) were compared. RESULTS: Amount of contrast medium was significantly lower in CCTA compared to i.v. CTA (23 ± 7 ml vs. 119 ± 15 ml, p<0.0001). Patients undergoing catheter-directed CTA had higher baseline creatinine values compared to the group with intravenous iodine application (1.9 ± 0.6 mg/dl vs. 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/dl; p<0.0001). Follow-up serum creatinine levels however did not show significant alterations between the two groups (1.9 ± 0.4 mg/dl vs. 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/dl). No major complications were detected in the CCTA group. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was comparable between i.v. CTA and CCTA (8.5 ± 4.6 vs. 7.7 ± 4.0; p = 0.37) and subjective image similarly revealed no differences with a good interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.647). CONCLUSIONS: Catheter-directed CTA is safe and provides comparable image quality with a substantial retrenchment of the needed amount of iodine-based contrast medium. However, no benefit of the reduced contrast medium protocol with respect to renal function was observed.

Difficult Peripheral Venous Access in Children: An International Survey and Critical Appraisal of Assessment Tools and Escalation Pathways.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous cannulation is considered a routine procedure, yet 50% of first attempt insertions fail, necessitating repeat insertion attempts. Identification of children with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) can help promote prompt escalation to an appropriately skilled clinician. OBJECTIVE: To describe current international practice regarding the identification and management of children with DIVA, and to systematically review clinical tools and clinical pathways for children with DIVA. METHODS: A cross-sectional, international survey; followed by a systematic review and critical appraisal of clinical pathways using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE) II checklist. RESULTS: A total of 148 clinicians from eight countries completed the survey. The majority were nurses (n = 92; 62%), practicing as vascular access specialists (n = 27; 18%). Twenty-three respondents (16%) reported using a DIVA tool, of which the DIVA Score was most common (n = 5; 22%). Five clinical pathways were identified from the survey and review. Based on the AGREE II domains, pathways generally scored well for scope and purpose, and for clarity of presentation areas. Information on the rigor of development and editorial independence was infrequently detailed. Based on AGREE II findings, one pathway was recommended for clinical practice, and four were recommended for use with modification. CONCLUSIONS: Resources for the identification and escalation of children with DIVA are not standardized or consistently used. Further work is needed to streamline processes for DIVA identification and escalation to the appropriate clinician, with technology-assisted insertion capability. This will enhance patient experiences and reduce harm from multiple insertion attempts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multiple failed insertion attempts come at great cost to the child, family, and healthcare service. Early identification and management of the child with DIVA can ensure prompt escalation and management, improving the patient and family experience.