We sought to identify the reasons for peripheral intravenous cannulae insertion in the emergency department (ED), and the first-time insertion success rate, along with patient and clinician factors influencing this phenomenon.
Methods
A prospective cohort study of patients requiring peripheral cannulae insertion in a tertiary ED. Clinical and clinician data were obtained.
Results
A total 734 peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) insertions were included in the study where 460 insertions were analysed. The first-time insertion success incidence was 86%. The antecubital fossa (ACF) site accounted for over 50% of insertions. Multivariate logistic regression modelling to predict first-time insertion success for patient factors found: age <40 versus 80+ years, emaciated versus normal patient size, having a visible or palpable vein/s, and ACF versus forearm insertion site to be statistically significant. Statistically significant clinician factors predicting success were: higher number of prior cannulation procedures performed, and increased clinician perception of the likelihood of a successful insertion. When patient and clinician factors were combined in a logistic regression model, emaciated versus normal, visible vein/s, ACF versus forearm site, higher number of prior PIVC procedures performed and increased clinician perceived likelihood of success were statistically associated with first-time insertion success.
Conclusions
Peripheral intravenous cannulation insertion success could be improved if performed by clinicians with greater procedural experience and increased perception of the likelihood of success. Some patient factors predict cannulation success: ‘normal’ body weight, visible vein/s and cubital fossa placement; venepuncture may be a cheaper alternative for others if intravenous therapy is not imperative.
SebbaneM., ClaretP.G., LefebvreS.Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the emergency department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med.2013; 44 (2): 299–305.
3.
AulagnierJ., HocC., MathieuE., DreyfusJ.F., FischlerM., Le GuenM.Efficacy of AccuVein to facilitate peripheral intravenous placement in adults presenting to an emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med.2014; 21 (8): 858–863.
4.
LapostolleF., CatineauJ., GarrigueB.Prospective evaluation of peripheral venous access difficulty in emergency care. Intensive Care Med.2007; 33 (8): 1452–7.
5.
WittingM.D.IV access difficulty: incidence and delays in an urban emergency department. J Emerg Med.2012; 42 (4): 483–487.
6.
KerK., TansleyG., BeecherD.Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2015 Feb 26;2: CD011386.
7.
CarrP.J., GlynnR.W., DineenB., KropmansT.J.B.A pilot intravenous cannulation team: an Irish perspective. Br J Nurs.2010; 19 (10): S19–27.
8.
FreyA.M.Success rates for peripheral i.v. insertion in a children's hospital. Financial implications. J Intraven Nurs.1998; 21 (3): 160–5.
9.
Bausone-GazdaD., LefaiverC.A., WaltersS.A.A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications of 2 peripheral intravenous catheter-stabilization systems. J Infus Nurs.2010; 33 (6): 371–384.
10.
WallisM.C., McGrailM., WebsterJ.Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.2014; 35 (1): 63–8.
11.
LimmE.I., FangX., DendleC., StuartR.L., Egerton WarburtonD.Half of all peripheral intravenous lines in an Australian tertiary emergency department are unused: pain with no gain?Ann Emerg Med.2013; 62 (5): 521–525.
12.
ThomasA., HayesP., LockieT., HarringtonD.Venflons: why can't we resist putting them in?J Hosp Infect.2006; 63 (1): 108–109.
13.
TuffahaH.W., RickardC.M., WebsterJ.Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy.2014; 12 (1): 51–58.
14.
TuffahaH.W., RickardC.M., InwoodS., GordonL., ScuffhamP.The epic3 recommendation that clinically indicated replacement of peripheral venous catheters is safe and cost-saving: how much would the NHS save?J Hosp Infect.2014; 87 (3): 183–4.
15.
RicardJ-D, SalomonL., BoyerA.Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med.2013; 41 (9): 2108–2115.
16.
FieldsM.J., PielaN.E., AuA.K., KuB.S.Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients. See comment in PubMed Commons below Am J Emerg Med.2014; 32 (10): 1179–82.
17.
JacobsonA.F., WinslowE.H.Variables influencing intravenous catheter insertion difficulty and failure: an analysis of 339 intravenous catheter insertions. Heart Lung.2005; 34 (5): 345–59.
18.
YenK., RiegertA., GorelickM.H.Derivation of the DIVA score: a clinical prediction rule for the identification of children with difficult intravenous access. Pediatr Emerg Care.2008; 24 (3): 143–147.
19.
RikerM.W., KennedyC., WinfreyB.S., YenK., DowdM.D.Validation and refinement of the difficult intravenous access score: a clinical prediction rule for identifying children with difficult intravenous access. Acad Emerg Med.2011; 18 (11): 1129–1134.
20.
BensghirM., ChkouraK., MounirK., DrissiM.Elwali a, Ahtil R, et al. [Peripheral intravenous access in the operating room: characteristics and predictors of difficulty] in French. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim.2012; 31 (7-8): 600–4.
21.
CuperN.J., de GraaffJ.C., van DijkA.T.H., VerdaasdonkR.M., van der WerffD.B.M., KalkmanC.J.Predictive factors for difficult intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Paediatr Anaesth.2012; 22 (3): 223–9.
22.
De la Torre-MonteroJ-C, Montealegre-SanzM., Faraldo-CabanaA.Venous International Assessment, VIA scale, validated classification procedure for the peripheral venous system. J Vasc Access.2014; 15 (1): 45–50.
23.
WebsterJ., MorrisH-L, RobinsonK., SandersonU.Development and validation of a Vein Assessment Tool (VAT). Aust J Adv Nurs.2007; 24 (4): 5–7.
24.
JuvinP., BlarelA., BrunoF., DesmontsJ-M. Is peripheral line placement more difficult in obese than in lean patients?Anesth Analg.2003; 96 (4): 1218.
25.
FitzpatrickT.B.The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol.1988; 124 (6): 869–71.
26.
A language and environment for statistical computing.R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2014. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/.
27.
de NegriD.C., AvelarA.F., AndreoniS., Pedreira MdaL.Predisposing factors for peripheral intravenous puncture failure in children. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem.2012; 20 (6): 1072–80.
28.
JacobsonA.F.Intradermal normal saline solution, self-selected music, and insertion difficulty effects on intravenous insertion pain. Heart Lung.1999; 28 (2): 114–22.
29.
SchnadowerD., LinS., PereraP., SmerlingA., DayanP.A pilot study of ultrasound analysis before pediatric peripheral vein cannulation attempt. Acad Emerg Med.2007; 14 (5): 483–485.
30.
SabriA., SzalasJ., HolmesK.S., LabibL., MussivandT.Failed attempts and improvement strategies in peripheral intravenous catheterization. Biomed Mater Eng.2013; 23 (1-2): 93–108.
31.
ZhangM., LeeM., KnottS.Is clinical performance adversely affected by wearing gloves during paediatric peripheral intravenous cannulation?Emerg Med Australas.2014; 26 (5): 455–60.
32.
De GraaffJ.C., CuperN.J., MungraR.A.A., VlaardingerbroekK., NumanS.C., KalkmanC.J.Near-infrared light to aid peripheral intravenous cannulation in children: a cluster randomised clinical trial of three devices. Anaesthesia.2013; 68 (8): 835–45.
33.
HeyerN.J., DerzonJ.H., WingesL.Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood sample hemolysis in EDs: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Biochem.2012; 45 (13-14): 1012–32.
34.
FlodgrenG., LoC., MayhewA., OmarO., PereiraC.R., ShepperdS.Interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for prevention of device-related infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2013 Mar28; 3: CD006559.
35.
AlexandrouE., RamjanL., MurphyJ., HuntL., BetihavasV., FrostS.A.Training of undergraduate clinicians in vascular access: an integrative review. JAVA - J Assoc Vasc Access.2012; 17 (3): 146–58.
36.
GoddardL., ClaytonS., PetoT.E., BowlerI.C.The ‘just-in-case venflon’: effect of surveillance and feedback on prevalence of peripherally inserted intravascular devices. J Hosp Infect.2006; 64 (4): 401–2.
37.
KellyA.M., Egerton-WarburtonD.When is peripheral intravenous catheter insertion indicated in the emergency department?Emerg Med Australas.2014; 26 (5): 515–6.
38.
KellyA.M., KlimS.Taking blood cultures from a newly established intravenous catheter in the emergency department does not increase the rate of contaminated blood cultures. Emerg Med Australas.2013; 25 (5): 435–8.
MountainD.Introduction of a 4-hour rule in Western Australian emergency departments. Emerg Med Australas.2010; 22 (5): 374–8.
41.
ZenginN., EnçN.Comparison of two blood sampling methods in anticoagulation therapy: venipuncture and peripheral venous catheter. J Clin Nurs.2008; 17 (3): 386–93.
42.
PeduzziP., ConcatoJ., KemperE., HolfordT.R., FeinsteinA.R.A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol.1996; 49 (12): 1373–9.
43.
VittinghoffE., McCullochC.E.Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol.2007; 165 (6): 710–8.
