OBJECTIVES: To evaluate animal comfort and ease of placement of a veterinary-specific intravenous catheter compared with a catheter manufactured for human use. METHODS: Fifty-nine veterinary undergraduates were recruited to perform intravenous catheterisations with two brands of over-the-needle catheter [Smiths Medical Jelco® (human use) and Abbott Animal Health catheter® (veterinary use)] in 69 healthy cats (n = 28) and dogs (n = 41) requiring general anaesthesia. After a standardised pre-anaesthetic medication, each animal was randomly allocated to have one of the two brands of catheter placed. Each student was allowed a maximum of three attempts to achieve cephalic vein catheterisation. The student and a single experienced observer evaluated each attempt. Observations related to ease of placement and to the animal's reaction were recorded. RESULTS: Human use catheters were placed in 34 and veterinary use in 35 animals. There was no difference in weight, sex or sedation score between the two groups. The number of failed attempts was similar between the two groups. There was no difference between groups for the number of animals reacting to catheter insertion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The two types of catheters evaluated are equally suitable for intravenous catheterisation of sedated animals by veterinary undergraduate students.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate animal comfort and ease of placement of a veterinary-specific intravenous catheter compared with a catheter manufactured for human use. METHODS: Fifty-nine veterinary undergraduates were recruited to perform intravenous catheterisations with two brands of over-the-needle catheter [Smiths Medical Jelco® (human use) and Abbott Animal Health catheter® (veterinary use)] in 69 healthy cats (n = 28) and dogs (n = 41) requiring general anaesthesia. After a standardised pre-anaesthetic medication, each animal was randomly allocated to have one of the two brands of catheter placed. Each student was allowed a maximum of three attempts to achieve cephalic vein catheterisation. The student and a single experienced observer evaluated each attempt. Observations related to ease of placement and to the animal's reaction were recorded. RESULTS:Human use catheters were placed in 34 and veterinary use in 35 animals. There was no difference in weight, sex or sedation score between the two groups. The number of failed attempts was similar between the two groups. There was no difference between groups for the number of animals reacting to catheter insertion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The two types of catheters evaluated are equally suitable for intravenous catheterisation of sedated animals by veterinary undergraduate students.
Authors: Paolo Emidio Crisi; Francesca De Santis; Giovanni Aste; Pietro Giorgio Tiscar; Francesco Mosca; Agostina Gasparini; Andrea Felici; Laura Ferroni; Arianna Miglio; Morena Di Tommaso; Alessia Luciani Journal: Vet Sci Date: 2022-03-06