OBJECTIVES: To report our success and complication rates with emergency department (ED) technician-performed ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter placement and to compare our results to similar studies in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients who underwent US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement attempts for clinical care in the ED. All patients meeting difficult IV access criteria who had a US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement attempted by a trained ED technician were included. Average attempts per success and overall success rates were compared to similar published studies. RESULTS: There were 830 participants, with an overall success rate of ED technician- performed US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement of 97.5%. Clinicians categorized 82.6% of participants as having difficult IV access and reported that in 46.5%, a central venous catheter would have been necessary if the US-guided peripheral IV catheter failed. Of successful catheter attempts, 86.8% were placed on the first attempt; 11.6% were placed on the second attempt; and 1.6% were placed on the third attempt. For this study, the average number of attempts per success was 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.18), which was lower than in 6 other published studies, ranging from 1.27 to 1.70. The overall success rate of our ED technician-performed attempts was 0.970 (95% confidence interval, 0.956-0.983), which was higher than that reported in previous ED technician studies (0.79-0.80), and closer to that reported for physicians or nurses (0.87-0.97). The arterial puncture complication rate was 0.8%, which was also lower than in other published studies (1.25%-9.80%). CONCLUSIONS: With brief but comprehensive training, ED technicians can successfully obtain US-guided peripheral IV catheter access in patients with difficult IV access.
OBJECTIVES: To report our success and complication rates with emergency department (ED) technician-performed ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral intravenous (IV) catheter placement and to compare our results to similar studies in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective database of patients who underwent US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement attempts for clinical care in the ED. All patients meeting difficult IV access criteria who had a US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement attempted by a trained ED technician were included. Average attempts per success and overall success rates were compared to similar published studies. RESULTS: There were 830 participants, with an overall success rate of ED technician- performed US-guided peripheral IV catheter placement of 97.5%. Clinicians categorized 82.6% of participants as having difficult IV access and reported that in 46.5%, a central venous catheter would have been necessary if the US-guided peripheral IV catheter failed. Of successful catheter attempts, 86.8% were placed on the first attempt; 11.6% were placed on the second attempt; and 1.6% were placed on the third attempt. For this study, the average number of attempts per success was 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.18), which was lower than in 6 other published studies, ranging from 1.27 to 1.70. The overall success rate of our ED technician-performed attempts was 0.970 (95% confidence interval, 0.956-0.983), which was higher than that reported in previous ED technician studies (0.79-0.80), and closer to that reported for physicians or nurses (0.87-0.97). The arterial puncture complication rate was 0.8%, which was also lower than in other published studies (1.25%-9.80%). CONCLUSIONS: With brief but comprehensive training, ED technicians can successfully obtain US-guided peripheral IV catheter access in patients with difficult IV access.
Authors: Céline Bridey; Nathalie Thilly; Thomas Lefevre; Adeline Maire-Richard; Maxime Morel; Bruno Levy; Nicolas Girerd; Antoine Kimmoun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fredericus H J van Loon; Loes W E van Hooff; Hans D de Boer; Seppe S H A Koopman; Marc P Buise; Hendrikus H M Korsten; Angelique T M Dierick-van Daele; Arthur R A Bouwman Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Pia Iben Pietersen; Søren Mikkelsen; Annmarie T Lassen; Simon Helmerik; Gitte Jørgensen; Giti Nadim; Helle Marie Christensen; Daniel Wittrock; Christian B Laursen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Richard A Hoppmann; Jeanette Mladenovic; Lawrence Melniker; Radu Badea; Michael Blaivas; Miguel Montorfano; Alfred Abuhamad; Vicki Noble; Arif Hussain; Gregor Prosen; Tomás Villen; Gabriele Via; Ramon Nogue; Craig Goodmurphy; Marcus Bastos; G Stephen Nace; Giovanni Volpicelli; Richard J Wakefield; Steve Wilson; Anjali Bhagra; Jongyeol Kim; David Bahner; Chris Fox; Ruth Riley; Peter Steinmetz; Bret P Nelson; John Pellerito; Levon N Nazarian; L Britt Wilson; Irene W Y Ma; David Amponsah; Keith R Barron; Renee K Dversdal; Mike Wagner; Anthony J Dean; David Tierney; James W Tsung; Paula Nocera; José Pazeli; Rachel Liu; Susanna Price; Luca Neri; Barbara Piccirillo; Adi Osman; Vaughan Lee; Nitha Naqvi; Tomislav Petrovic; Paul Bornemann; Maxime Valois; Jean-Francoise Lanctot; Robert Haddad; Deepak Govil; Laura A Hurtado; Vi Am Dinh; Robert M DePhilip; Beatrice Hoffmann; Resa E Lewiss; Nayana A Parange; Akira Nishisaki; Stephanie J Doniger; Paul Dallas; Kevin Bergman; J Oscar Barahona; Ximena Wortsman; R Stephen Smith; Craig A Sisson; James Palma; Mike Mallin; Liju Ahmed; Hassan Mustafa Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2022-07-27
Authors: Rasmus Jørgensen; Christian B Laursen; Lars Konge; Pia Iben Pietersen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-06-27 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Nanna L Andersen; Rune O Jensen; Stefan Posth; Christian B Laursen; Rasmus Jørgensen; Ole Graumann Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 1.889