Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A randomized comparison between an intravenous catheter system with a retractable guidewire and conventional intravenous catheters.
Chick, Jeffrey Forris Beecham; Reddy, Shilpa N; Chen, James X; Sammarco, Therese; Chittams, Jesse; Trerotola, Scott O.
Afiliação
  • Chick JFB; Department of Radiology, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI - USA.
  • Reddy SN; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA - USA.
  • Chen JX; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA - USA.
  • Sammarco T; Radiology Associates of the Main Line, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Main Line Health System, Bryn Mawr Hospital, Bryn Mawr, PA - USA.
  • Chittams J; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA - USA.
  • Trerotola SO; Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA - USA.
J Vasc Access ; 18(6): 530-534, 2017 Nov 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28777421
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to compare an intravenous (IV) catheter system which uses a retractable guidewire (RG-IV) designed to facilitate IV placement with a conventional IV (C-IV) catheter control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized design was used. Patients referred to interventional radiology for outpatient procedures were offered participation. Enrollment occurred between August and November 2013. Patients were assigned to receive the RG-IV or C-IV in a 1:1 randomization scheme. After assignment, up to three attempts by a registered nurse occurred with the assigned device; if all three attempts failed, crossover to the other device occurred. The primary outcome variable was first-attempt success at IV placement. Secondary outcome variables included patient and clinician satisfaction, number of attempts, and time to successful placement. Two hundred twenty patients were enrolled (139 men, 81 women) in the study. RESULTS: Of the 220 patients, two were withdrawn prior to IV attempt leaving 218 subjects, 109 in each group. First attempt success (77% RG-IV vs. 82% C-IV, p = 0.5), number of attempts to achieve IV access (1.26 RG-IV vs. 1.29 C-IV, p = 0.98), and time to achieve IV success (2.9 minutes RG-IV vs. 2.7 C-IV, p = 0.82) did not differ between groups. Patient satisfaction with insertion was higher in the C-IV group (4.5/5 vs. 3.9/5, p<0.001) although comfort comparison was not (3.3/5 RG-IV vs. 3.5/5 C-IV, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In an interventional radiology outpatient population, the RG-IV and C-IV were comparable in first-attempt success, number of attempts, and time to achieve IV success. Patient satisfaction was higher with C-IV.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cateterismo Periférico / Radiografia Intervencionista / Dispositivos de Acesso Vascular Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Vasc Access Assunto da revista: ANGIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cateterismo Periférico / Radiografia Intervencionista / Dispositivos de Acesso Vascular Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Vasc Access Assunto da revista: ANGIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos