Advertisement

Two different techniques of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement versus the traditional approach in the pre-hospital emergency setting: a randomized study

  • Roman SkulecEmail author
  • Jitka Callerova
  • Petr Vojtisek
  • Vladimir Cerny
EM - ORIGINAL

Abstract

We performed a randomized pre-hospital clinical study to compare two different techniques of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter (PVC) insertion and the conventional cannulation technique in the pre-hospital emergency setting, with a specific focus on the procedural success rate and the time required to introduce PVC. This pre-hospital prospective controlled randomized clinical trial allocated patients treated by emergency medical service to undergo PVC insertion fully controlled by ultrasound (ultrasound guidance of the PVC tip until it penetrates the lumen, group A), PVC insertion partially controlled by ultrasound (target vein identification only, group B) or to receive PVC without any ultrasound guidance (group C). The study outcomes were monitored until the patient was admitted to the hospital. A total of 300 adult patients were enrolled. The success of the first attempt (group A: 88%, group B: 94%, group C: 76%, p < 0.001) and overall success rate (A: 99%, B: 99%, C: 90%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the group A, followed by group B when compared to group C. The number of attempts was significantly lower (A: 1.18 ± 0.54, B: 1.05 ± 0.22, C: 1.22 ± 0.57, p < 0.001) and the time required for the procedure shorter (A: 75.3 ± 60.6, B: 43.5 ± 26.0, C: 82.3 ± 100.9 s, p < 0.001) in group B compared to groups A and C. Both techniques of ultrasound-guided PVC placement were associated with higher success rates than the conventional method. However, PVC insertion partially controlled by ultrasound was superior to full ultrasound guidance in terms of time and number of cannulation attempts required.

Keywords

Ultrasound Peripheral venous catheter Pre-hospital care 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to cordially thank all patients and all investigators for participating in the study. We acknowledge the statistical support of Ondrej Bradac, MD, PhD.

Author contributions

RS conceived the study, designed the trial, supervised the trial and data collection, undertook recruitment of the patients, provided statistical analysis, prepared the manuscript and takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. JC and PV designed the trial, supervised the trial, undertook recruitment of the patients and contributed substantially to the manuscript preparation. The role of VC was the senior researcher, he designed the trial, provided quality control and contributed substantially to the data analysis and the manuscript preparation.

Funding

Authors declare no financial funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Skulec R reports no financial support from GE Medical Systems Ceska republika, s.r.o.; two ultrasound devices, Vscan Dual Probe (GE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA), were temporarily provided by them for study purposes. Otherwise, he and other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Statements on human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee (Ethics Committee, University hospital Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic, reference code 201603S-12) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bensghir M, Chkoura K, Mounir K et al (2012) Accès veineux périphériques au bloc opératoire: caractéristiques et facteurs prédictifs de difficulté. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 31:600–604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annfar.2012.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Myers LA, Arteaga GM, Kolb LJ et al (2013) Prehospital peripheral intravenous vascular access success rates in children. Prehosp Emerg Care 17:425–428.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2013.818180 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prottengeier J, Albermann M, Heinrich S et al (2016) The prehospital intravenous access assessment: a prospective study on intravenous access failure and access delay in prehospital emergency medicine. Eur J Emerg Med 23:442–447.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000291 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bridey C, Thilly N, Lefevre T et al (2018) Ultrasound-guided versus landmark approach for peripheral intravenous access by critical care nurses: a randomised controlled study. BMJ Open 8:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mbamalu D, Banerjee A (1999) Methods of obtaining peripheral venous access in difficult situations. Postgrad Med J 75:459–462.  https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.75.886.459 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Loon FHJ, Buise MP, Claassen JJF et al (2018) Comparison of ultrasound guidance with palpation and direct visualisation for peripheral vein cannulation in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth 121:358–366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.04.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sedlarova MP, Zvonickova PM, Svobodova PH (2017) Current recommendations in the care of peripheral venous catheters. Med Praxi 14:94–97Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gottlieb M, Sundaram T, Holladay D, Nakitende D (2017) Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line placement: a narrative review of evidence-based best practices. West J Emerg Med 18:1047–1054.  https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.7.34610 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joing S, Strote S, Caroon L et al (2012) Ultrasound-guided peripheral IV placement. N Engl J Med 366:e38.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMvcm1005951 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glassberg E, Lending G, Abbou B, Lipsky AM (2013) Something’s missing: peripheral intravenous catheter fracture. J Am Board Fam Med 26:805–806.  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2013.06.130097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seymour CW, Cooke CR, Hebert PL, Rea TD (2012) Intravenous access during out-of-hospital emergency care of noninjured patients: a population-based outcome study. Ann Emerg Med 59:296–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuzma K, Sporer KA, Michael GE, Youngblood GM (2009) When are prehospital intravenous catheters used for treatment? J Emerg Med 36:357–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.054 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lapostolle F, Catineau J, Garrigue B et al (2007) Prospective evaluation of peripheral venous access difficulty in emergency care. Intensive Care Med 33:1452–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0634-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frisch A, Cammarata S, Mosesso VN, Martin-Gill C (2012) Multivariate analysis of successful intravenous line placement in the prehospital setting. Prehosp Emerg Care 17:46–50.  https://doi.org/10.3109/10903127.2012.710717 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minville V, Pianezza A, Asehnoune K et al (2006) Prehospital intravenous line placement assessment in the French emergency system: a prospective study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 23:594–597.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265021506000202 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idemoto BK, Rowbottom JR, Reynolds JD, Hickman RL (2014) The accucath intravenous catheter system with retractable coiled tip guidewire and conventional peripheral intravenous catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled comparison. J Assoc Vasc Access 19:94–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.java.2014.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jin LM, Medeck S, Ruley J et al (2018) “Guidewire intravenous catheter systems do not improve first-pass success rates for peripheral access when placed by army combat medics (68W) in a pre-hospital setting”. A prospective, randomized controlled trial with crossover study design. Mil Med 00:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cantor-Peled G, Halak M, Ovadia-Blechman Z (2016) Peripheral vein locating techniques. Imaging Med 8:1–9Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jenssen C, Brkljacic B, Hocke M et al (2015) EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part VI—ultrasound-guided vascular interventions. Ultraschall der Medizin Eur J Ultrasound 37:473–476.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1553450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy ML, Shokoohi H, Boniface KS et al (2016) Ultrasonography versus landmark for peripheral intravenous cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 68:10–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aponte H, Acosta S, Rigamonti D et al (2007) The use of ultrasound for placement of intravenous catheters. AANA J 75:212–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    İsmailoğlu EG, Zaybak A, Akarca FK, Kıyan S (2015) The effect of the use of ultrasound in the success of peripheral venous catheterisation. Int Emerg Nurs 23:89–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2014.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerforne T, Petitpas F, Frasca D et al (2012) Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access in severely ill patients with suspected difficult vascular puncture. Chest 141:279–280.  https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-2054 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu YT, Alsaawi A, Bjornsson HM et al (2014) Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials. Eur J Emerg Med 21:358–366.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328363bebc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blaivas M, Brannam L, Fernandez E (2003) Short-axis versus long-axis approaches for teaching ultrasound-guided vascular access on a new inanimate model. Acad Emerg Med 10:1307–1311.  https://doi.org/10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00534-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahler SA, Wang H, Lester C et al (2011) Short- vs long-axis approach to ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access: a prospective randomized study. Am J Emerg Med 29:1194–1197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2010.07.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emergency Medical Service of the Central Bohemian RegionKladnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Intensive CareJ.E. Purkinje University, Masaryk Hospital Usti Nad LabemUsti Nad LabemCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive CareCharles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, University Hospital Hradec KraloveHradec KraloveCzech Republic
  4. 4.Faculty of Health StudiesJ.E. Purkinje UniversityUsti Nad LabemCzech Republic
  5. 5.Usti and Labem Region Emergency Medical ServicesUsti and LabemCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Research and DevelopmentCharles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Kralove, University Hospital Hradec KraloveHradec KraloveCzech Republic
  7. 7.Department of Anesthesia, Pain Management and Perioperative MedicineDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations