Clinical use of electrical stimulation with the Veinplicity ® device and its effect on the first attempt success rate of peripheral intravenous cannulation: A non-randomized clinical trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2019
Clinical use of electrical stimulation with the Veinplicity ® device and its effect on the first attempt success rate of peripheral intravenous cannulation: A non-randomized clinical trial
Peripheral intravenous cannulation is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures. Venodilation, which can be achieved with different techniques, is an important factor for first attempt success. The objective of this study was to compare the first attempt success rates upon peripheral intravenous cannulation after applying a tourniquet, with venous dilation by electrical stimulation using the Veinplicity® device, or a combination of both techniques, in participants at moderate risk of a difficult peripheral intravenous access.
Methods:
This non-randomized clinical trial was carried out in adult patients divided into three parallel study groups, consisting of cannulation with a tourniquet (control group), cannulation after electrical stimulation without using a tourniquet (intervention group 1), and cannulation after applying electrical stimulation followed by the application of a tourniquet on the selected upper extremity (intervention group 2). The primary outcome was the first attempt success rate of peripheral intravenous catheter placement.
Results:
In all, 141 participants were included in this study, with an overall success rate of 86%. Success rates of 78%, 88%, and 92% were observed in the control group, intervention group 1, and intervention group 2, respectively (p = 0.25, χ2 = 2.771, df = 2). A higher first attempt success rate was detected in participants in intervention group 2, when compared to the control group (p = 0.04, χ2 = 4.63, df = 1).
Conclusion:
Increase in first attempt success was clinically relevant when electrical stimulation with the Veinplicity® device was combined with the application of a tourniquet in participants at moderate risk of a difficult peripheral intravenous access.
YamagamiYTsujimotoTInoueT.How long should local warming for venodilation be used for peripheral intravenous cannulation? A prospective observational study. Int J Nurs Stud2018; 79: 52–57.
2.
DychterSSGoldDACarsonD, et al. Intravenous therapy: a review of complications and economic considerations of peripheral access. J Infus Nurs2012; 35(2): 84–91.
3.
Van LoonFHJBuiseMPClaassenJJF, et al. Comparison of ultrasound guidance with palpation and direct visualisation for peripheral vein cannulation in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth2018; 121(2): 358–366.
4.
Van LoonFHPuijnLAVan AarleWH, et al. Pain upon inserting a peripheral intravenous catheter: size does not matter. J Vasc Access2018; 19(3): 258–265.
5.
TuffahaHWRickardCMWebsterJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy2014; 12(1): 51–58.
6.
WallisMCMcGrailMWebsterJ, et al. Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2014; 35(1): 63–68.
7.
RickardCMWebsterJWallisMC, et al. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet2012; 380(9847): 1066–1074.
8.
ParkerSIABenziesKMHaydenKA, et al. Effectiveness of interventions for adult peripheral intravenous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Emerg Nurs2017; 31: 15–21.
9.
McCarthyMLShokoohiHBonifaceKS, et al. Ultrasonography versus landmark for peripheral intravenous cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med2016; 68(1): 10–18.
10.
VittoMJMyersMVittoCM, et al. Perceived difficulty and success rate of standard versus ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous cannulation in a Novice Study Group: a randomized crossover trial. J Ultrasound Med2016; 35(5): 895–898.
11.
Van LoonFHPuijnLAHoutermanS, et al. Development of the A-DIVA scale: a clinical predictive scale to identify difficult intravenous access in adult patients based on clinical observations. Medicine (Baltimore)2016; 95(16): e3428.
12.
GorskiLA.The 2016 infusion therapy standards of practice. Home Healthc Now2017; 35(1): 10–18.
13.
PanebiancoNLFredetteJMSzyldD, et al. What you see (sonographically) is what you get: vein and patient characteristics associated with successful ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous placement in patients with difficult access. Acad Emerg Med2009; 16(12): 1298–1303.
14.
SabriASzalasJHolmesKS, et al. Failed attempts and improvement strategies in peripheral intravenous catheterization. Biomed Mater Eng2013; 23(1–2): 93–108.
HadawayLCMillamDA. On the road to successful I.V—starts. Nursing (Lond)2005; 35(Suppl. On): 1–14; quiz 14–16.
17.
LovedayHPWilsonJAPrattRJ, et al. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect2014; 86(Suppl. 1): S1–S70.
18.
GorskiLA.Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs2007; 30(1): 20–21.
19.
KuleAHangBBahlA.Preventing the collapse of a peripheral vein during cannulation: an evaluation of various tourniquet techniques on vein compressibility. J Emerg Med2014; 46(5): 659–666.
20.
NelsonDJeanmonodRJeanmonodD.Randomized trial of tourniquet vs blood pressure cuff for target vein dilation in ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access. Am J Emerg Med2014; 32(7): 761–764.
21.
Bodenham ChairABabuSBennettJ, et al. Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland: safe vascular access 2016. Anaesthesia2016; 71(5): 573–585.
22.
GorskiLA.Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs2007; 30(1): 20–21.
23.
Dutt-GuptaJBownTCynaAM.Effect of communication on pain during intravenous cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth2007; 99(6): 871–875.
24.
HawkerGAMianSKendzerskaT, et al. Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS Pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS Pain), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic pain grade scale (CPGS), short form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2011; 63(Suppl. 11): S240–S252.
25.
SchugSAPalmerGMScottDA, et al. Acute pain management: scientific evidence. 4th ed. Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Wellington, New Zealand: Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, 2015.
26.
Des JarlaisDCLylesCCrepazN.Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health2004; 94(3): 361–366.
27.
SouVMcManusCMifflinN, et al. A clinical pathway for the management of difficult venous access. BMC Nurs2017; 16: 64.
28.
GottliebMSundaramTHolladayD, et al. Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line placement: a narrative review of evidence-based best practices. West J Emerg Med2017; 18(6): 1047–1054.
29.
Ray-BarruelGCookeMMitchellM, et al. Implementing the I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal: protocol for an interrupted time-series study. BMJ Open2018; 8(6): e021290.
30.
ChopraVKuhnLRatzD, et al. Vascular access specialist training, experience, and practice in the United States: results from the national PICC1 survey. J Infus Nurs2017; 40(1): 15–25.
31.
StolzLACappaARMincklerMR, et al. Prospective evaluation of the learning curve for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placement. J Vasc Access2016; 17(4): 366–370.
32.
LianARippeyJCRCarrPJ.Teaching medical students ultrasound—guided vascular access—which learning method is best?J Vasc Access2017; 18(3): 255–258.
33.
YamagamiYTomitaKTsujimotoT, et al. Tourniquet application after local forearm warming to improve venodilation for peripheral intravenous cannulation in young and middle-aged adults: a single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud2017; 72: 1–7.
34.
LenhardtRSeyboldTKimbergerO, et al. Local warming and insertion of peripheral venous cannulas: single blinded prospective randomised controlled trial and single blinded randomised crossover trial. BMJ2002; 325(7361): 409–410.
35.
WilliamsKJRavikumarRGaweeshAS, et al. A review of the evidence to support neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the prevention and management of venous disease. Adv Exp Med Biol2017; 906: 377–386.
36.
WilkinsonIBWebbDJ.Venous occlusion plethysmography in cardiovascular research: methodology and clinical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol2001; 52(6): 631–646.
37.
CarrPJRippeyJCRBudgeonCA, et al. Insertion of peripheral intravenous cannulae in the Emergency Department: factors associated with first-time insertion success. J Vasc Access2016; 17(2): 182–190.
38.
FieldsJMPielaNEAuAK, et al. Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med2014; 32(10): 1179–1182.
39.
ZhaoW.A better alternative to stratified permuted block design for subject randomization in clinical trials. Stat Med2014; 33(30): 5239–5248.
40.
BreivikHRosselandLAStubhaugA.Statistical pearls: importance of effect-size, blinding, randomization, publication bias, and the overestimated p-values. Scand J Pain2013; 4(4): 217–219.
41.
McCambridgeJWittonJElbourneDR.Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol2014; 67(3): 267–277.
42.
SchwartzDFischhoffBKrishnamurtiT, et al. The Hawthorne effect and energy awareness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2013; 110(38): 15242–15246.
43.
ChenLFVan der WegMWHofmannDA, et al. The Hawthorne effect in infection prevention and epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2015; 36(12): 1444–1450.
44.
SedgwickPGreenwoodN.Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ2015; 351: h4672.
