dc.contributor.author
Salleras Duran, Laia
dc.contributor.author
Fuentes Pumarola, Concepció
dc.contributor.author
Fontova Almató, Aurora
dc.contributor.author
Roqueta Vall-llosera, Marta
dc.contributor.author
Cámara Liebana, David
dc.contributor.author
Ballester Ferrando, David
dc.identifier
http://hdl.handle.net/10256/23376
dc.description.abstract
While many emergency department (ED) patients need peripheral vascular catheterization, diagnosis and treatment are often delayed by difficult intravenous access (DIVA).
Aims
This study of ED patients with DIVA was designed to evaluate ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral intravenous (IV) catheterization, compare it with conventional catheterization, and analyse patient pain and satisfaction regarding catheterization.
Design
Randomized controlled clinical trial.
Methods
Adult patients treated in the ED who scored >3 on the Adult-Difficult Venous Catheterization scale were randomly assigned to either US-guided or conventional peripheral IV catheterization. Data were collected from April to December 2016. Study variables were catheter insertion success, number of catheterization attempts, time required to perform the procedure, catheter length and calibre, puncture site, complications, and catheter functioning. Pain and patient satisfaction were also analysed for each group and the full sample.
Results
120 and 138 patients were recruited for the US-guided and conventional peripheral IV catheterization groups, respectively. For the US-guided compared to the conventional procedure, insertion success was greater (91.75% versus 89.9%; p=0.04), the mean (SD) number of attempts was lower (1.29 (0.59) versus 1.81 (1.28); p<0.001), mean (SD) satisfaction was greater (7.59 (2.04) versus 6.69 (2.28); p=0.03), and the mean (SD) required time in minutes was greater (7.89 (7.13) versus 5.1 (3.69); p=0.045). Mean (SD) pain was moderate in both groups (4.6 (2.75) versus 4.33 (2.91) (p=0.32). Logistic regression for the full sample indicated that more attempts and greater pain were both associated with reduced satisfaction, while use of higher-calibre catheters was associated with greater satisfaction.
Conclusion
US-guided compared to conventional peripheral IV catheterization in patients with DIVA was more successful, required fewer attempts, enabled use of longer and higher-calibre catheters, and led to greater patient satisfaction. Patients who underwent US-guided intravenous catheterization reported moderate pain, similar to that reported for the conventional procedure
dc.description.abstract
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Elsevier
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.relation
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.pmn.2023.07.010
dc.relation
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/1524-9042
dc.rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Pain Management Nursing, 2023, vol. 25, núm. 1, p. E37-E44
dc.source
Articles publicats (D-I)
dc.subject
Cateterisme intravascular
dc.subject
Intravenous catheterization
dc.subject
Pacients -- Satisfacció
dc.subject
Patient satisfaction
dc.title
Pain and Satisfaction Perceptions of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Conventional Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization: A Randomized Controlled Trial
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion