Factors associated with peripheral intravenous cannulation first-time insertion success in the emergency department. A multicentre prospective cohort analysis of patient, clinician and product characteristics

Peter J Carr, James C R Rippey, Marie L Cooke, Michelle L Trevenen, Niall S Higgins, Aileen S Foale, Claire M Rickard, Peter J Carr, James C R Rippey, Marie L Cooke, Michelle L Trevenen, Niall S Higgins, Aileen S Foale, Claire M Rickard

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to identify the incidence of and factors associated with peripheral intravenous catheter/cannula (PIVC) first time insertion success (FTIS) in the emergency department (ED).

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Two tertiary EDs in Western Australia.

Participants: 879 ED patients.

Primary outcome: To identify factors affecting FTIS using univariate and multivariate logistic regression modelling. We created four models: patient factors only; clinician factors only; products and technology factors only and all factors model. We assessed each model's performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results: A total of 1201 PIVCs were inserted in 879 patients. The mean age was 60.3 (SD 22) years with slightly more females (52%). The FTIS rate was 73%, with 128 (15%) requiring a second attempt and 83 (9%) requiring three or more attempts. A small percentage (3%) had no recorded number of subsequent attempts. FTIS was related to the following patient factors: age (for a 1-year increase in age: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.998; p=0.0097); and target vein palpability: (always palpable vs never palpable: OR 3.53 95% CI 1.64 to 7.60; only palpable with tourniquet vs never palpable: OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.57; p=0.0014). Clinician factors related to FTIS include: clinicians with greater confidence (p<0.0001) and insertion experience (301-1000 vs <301: OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.34; >1000 vs <301: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.04; p=0.0011). The final all factors model combining patient factors; clinician factors and product and technology factors has greater discriminative ability than specific factors models. It has a sensitivity of 74.26%, specificity of 57.69%, positive predictive value of 82.87% and negative predictive value of 44.85%.

Conclusion: A clinical decision, matching patients who have no palpable veins and are older, with clinicians with greater confidence and experience, will likely improve FTIS.

Trialregistration number: ANZCTRN12615000588594; Results.

Keywords: emergency department; first time insertion success; logistic regression; peripheral intravenous catheters; receiver-operator characteristic curve.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: PJC’s research was supported by a Becton Dickinson (BD) contribution to the AVATAR group based at Griffith University. MC’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from 3M, Baxter, BD, Entrotech, outside the submitted work. CMR’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from 3M, Adhezion, Angiodynamics, Bard, Baxter, BBraun, BD, Carefusion, Centurion Medical Products, Cook Medical, Entrotech, Flomedical, ICU Medical, Medical Australia, Medtronic, Smiths Medical, Teleflex, outside the submitted work; consultancy payments from 3M, Bard, BBraun, BD, Smiths Medical, ResQDevices, outside the submitted work. No commercial entity had any role in the preparation of this manuscript. All other authors have no competing interest to declare.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic curves for each of the multivariate models. AUC, area under the curve.

References

    1. Alexandrou E, Ray-Barruel G, Carr PJ, et al. . Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide. J Hosp Med 2018;13 10.12788/jhm.3039
    1. Carr PJ, Higgins NS, Cooke ML, et al. . Tools, clinical prediction rules, and algorithms for the insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters in adult hospitalized patients: a systematic scoping review of literature. J Hosp Med 2017;12:851–8. 10.12788/jhm.2836
    1. Fields JM, Piela NE, Ku BS. Association between multiple IV attempts and perceived pain levels in the emergency department. J Vasc Access 2014;15:514–8. 10.5301/jva.5000282
    1. Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, et al. . Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet 2012;380:1066–74. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4
    1. Wallis MC, McGrail M, Webster J, et al. . Risk factors for peripheral intravenous catheter failure: a multivariate analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:63–8. 10.1086/674398
    1. Sebbane M, Claret PG, Lefebvre S, et al. . Predicting peripheral venous access difficulty in the emergency department using body mass index and a clinical evaluation of venous accessibility. J Emerg Med 2013;44:299–305. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2012.07.051
    1. Fields JM, Piela NE, Au AK, et al. . Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 2014;32:1179–82. 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.07.008
    1. Legemaat M, Carr PJ, van Rens RM, et al. . Peripheral intravenous cannulation: complication rates in the neonatal population: a multicenter observational study. J Vasc Access 2016;17:360–5. 10.5301/jva.5000558
    1. Carr PJ, Rippey JC, Budgeon CA, et al. . Insertion of peripheral intravenous cannulae in the Emergency Department: factors associated with first-time insertion success. J Vasc Access 2016;17:182–90. 10.5301/jva.5000487
    1. Lapostolle F, Catineau J, Garrigue B, et al. . Prospective evaluation of peripheral venous access difficulty in emergency care. Intensive Care Med 2007;33:1452–7. 10.1007/s00134-007-0634-y
    1. Yamada K, Yamada K, Katsuda I, et al. . Cubital fossa venipuncture sites based on anatomical variations and relationships of cutaneous veins and nerves. Clin Anat 2008;21:307–13. 10.1002/ca.20622
    1. Au AK, Rotte MJ, Grzybowski RJ, et al. . Decrease in central venous catheter placement due to use of ultrasound guidance for peripheral intravenous catheters. Am J Emerg Med 2012;30:1950–4. 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.04.016
    1. Hallam C, Weston V, Denton A, et al. . Development of the UK vessel health and preservation (vhp) framework: a multi-organisational collaborative. J Infect Prev 2016;17:65–72. 10.1177/1757177415624752
    1. Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. . The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:S1 10.7326/M15-0744
    1. van Loon FH, Puijn LA, Houterman S, 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 2016;95:e3428 10.1097/MD.0000000000003428
    1. Sou V, McManus C, Mifflin N, et al. . A clinical pathway for the management of difficult venous access. BMC Nurs 2017;16:64 10.1186/s12912-017-0261-z
    1. Carr PJ, Rippey JC, Cooke ML, et al. . Development of a clinical prediction rule to improve peripheral intravenous cannulae first attempt success in the emergency department and reduce post insertion failure rates: the Vascular Access Decisions in the Emergency Room (VADER) study protocol. BMJ Open 2016;6:e009196 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009196
    1. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. . Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:55 10.7326/M14-0697
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006;29:489–97. 10.1002/nur.20147
    1. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 2012;22:276–82. 10.11613/BM.2012.031
    1. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–5. 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>;2-3
    1. R CTR. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2017.
    1. Parker SI, Benzies KM, Hayden KA, et al. . Effectiveness of interventions for adult peripheral intravenous catheterization: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Emerg Nurs 2017;31:15–21. 10.1016/j.ienj.2016.05.004
    1. Egan G, Healy D, O’Neill H, et al. . Ultrasound guidance for difficult peripheral venous access: systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J 2013;30:521–6. 10.1136/emermed-2012-201652
    1. Carr PJ, Glynn RW, Dineen B, et al. . A pilot intravenous cannulation team: an Irish perspective. Br J Nurs 2010;19:S19–S27. 10.12968/bjon.2010.19.Sup3.48214
    1. Cuper NJ, de Graaff JC, van Dijk AT, et al. . Predictive factors for difficult intravenous cannulation in pediatric patients at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Paediatr Anaesth 2012;22:223–9. 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2011.03685.x

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다