REGULAR CONTENT
Final ID
551
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Chick1, T Sammarco2, J Chittams2, S Trerotola3
Institutions
1University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, 2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 3University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA
Purpose
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.
Materials & Methods
A prospective, randomized design was used; blinding was not possible due to differences in device appearance and function. Patients referred to interventional radiology (IR) for outpatient procedures were offered participation. Patients were assigned to receive the RG-IV or C-IV in a 1:1 randomization scheme. After random assignment, up to three attempts by a registered nurse occurred with the assigned device; if all three attempts failed, crossover to the other device was completed. Primary outcome was first-attempt success at IV placement. Secondary outcomes included number of attempts, time to successful placement, and patient satisfaction. Two hundred twenty patients were enrolled (139 men, 81 women).
Results
Two patients were withdrawn prior to IV placement leaving 218 subjects, 109 in each group.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>0.01) although comfort comparison was not (3.3/5 RG-IV vs 3.5/5 C-IV, P=0.15).
Conclusions
In an IR 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.
Final ID
551
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Chick1, T Sammarco2, J Chittams2, S Trerotola3
Institutions
1University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, 2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 3University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA
Purpose
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.
Materials & Methods
A prospective, randomized design was used; blinding was not possible due to differences in device appearance and function. Patients referred to interventional radiology (IR) for outpatient procedures were offered participation. Patients were assigned to receive the RG-IV or C-IV in a 1:1 randomization scheme. After random assignment, up to three attempts by a registered nurse occurred with the assigned device; if all three attempts failed, crossover to the other device was completed. Primary outcome was first-attempt success at IV placement. Secondary outcomes included number of attempts, time to successful placement, and patient satisfaction. Two hundred twenty patients were enrolled (139 men, 81 women).
Results
Two patients were withdrawn prior to IV placement 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>0.01) although comfort comparison was not (3.3/5 RG-IV vs 3.5/5 C-IV, P=0.15).
Conclusions
In an IR 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.