F H J van Loon1, M P Buise2, J J F Claassen2, A T M Dierick-van Daele3, A R A Bouwman4. 1. Department of Research and Education, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Technical Nursing Education, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: rick.v.loon@catharinaziekenhuis.nl. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Research and Education, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Technical Nursing Education, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Signal Processing Systems and Electrical Engineering, TU/e University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral vein cannulation is a routine and straightforward invasive procedure, although i.v. access can be difficult to obtain. To increase the success rate of inserting an i.v. catheter, many devices have been proposed, including ultrasonography. The objective of this study was to compare ultrasound guidance with the traditional approach of palpation and direct visualisation for peripehral vein cannulation. The primary outcome was successful peripheral i.v. cannulation. METHODS: Database search was performed on PubMed, Clinical Key, CINAHL, Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, and Trip Database (from January 2000 to December 2017). Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled odds ratio for success in peripheral i.v. cannulation. RESULTS: After database review and eligibility screening, eight studies were included in the final analysis, with a total of 1660 patients. The success rate in the ultrasound group was 81% (n=855), and was 70% (n=805) in the control group, resulting in a pooled odds ratio for success upon ultrasound-guided peripheral i.v. cannulation of 2.49 (95% confidence interval 1.37-4.52, P=0.003). Furthermore, the ultrasound-guided technique reduced the number of punctures and time needed to achieve i.v. access, and increased the level of patient satisfaction, although it did not result in a decreased number of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance increases the success rate of peripheral i.v. cannulation, especially in patients with known or predicted difficult i.v. access.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral vein cannulation is a routine and straightforward invasive procedure, although i.v. access can be difficult to obtain. To increase the success rate of inserting an i.v. catheter, many devices have been proposed, including ultrasonography. The objective of this study was to compare ultrasound guidance with the traditional approach of palpation and direct visualisation for peripehral vein cannulation. The primary outcome was successful peripheral i.v. cannulation. METHODS: Database search was performed on PubMed, Clinical Key, CINAHL, Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, and Trip Database (from January 2000 to December 2017). Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled odds ratio for success in peripheral i.v. cannulation. RESULTS: After database review and eligibility screening, eight studies were included in the final analysis, with a total of 1660 patients. The success rate in the ultrasound group was 81% (n=855), and was 70% (n=805) in the control group, resulting in a pooled odds ratio for success upon ultrasound-guided peripheral i.v. cannulation of 2.49 (95% confidence interval 1.37-4.52, P=0.003). Furthermore, the ultrasound-guided technique reduced the number of punctures and time needed to achieve i.v. access, and increased the level of patient satisfaction, although it did not result in a decreased number of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance increases the success rate of peripheral i.v. cannulation, especially in patients with known or predicted difficult i.v. access.
Authors: Fredericus H J van Loon; Harm J Scholten; Hendrikus H M Korsten; Arthur R A Bouwman Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: José Manuel López-Álvarez; Olivia Pérez-Quevedo; Joaquín Naya-Esteban; Teresa Ramirez-Lorenzo; Juan Carlos Falcón-González; Dionisio Lorenzo Lorenzo-Villegas Journal: J Ultrasound Date: 2021-05-04
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: Emily N Larsen; Nicole Marsh; Catherine O'Brien; Emily Monteagle; Christopher Friese; Claire M Rickard Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.603
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