8 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The purpose of this study is to compare ultrasound guided peripheral IV placement with and without the use of a guidewire. Patients in the Emergency Department with difficult peripheral IV access (as defined by 2 failed attempts by nursing staff) will be consented and randomized to standard ultrasound guided peripheral IV placement or ultrasound guided peripheral IV placement with modified seldinger technique using a guidewire.
By doing this study, the investigators hope to learn whether patients with difficult to obtain IV access who are treated with IO access are more satisfied with their care and have better outcomes. The investigators are specifically studying the time difference between groups and the difference in the number of attempts required to obtain vascular access and begin to treat with fluids and medications. The study will also measure patient satisfaction and procedural pain, the frequency of central line placement, the length of stay in the hospital and emergency department, and adverse events to intravascular access to determine whether IO access can improve these measures. The investigators hypothesize that the use of a protocol utilizing an IO device for select patients with failed IV access will reduce the time requirements to obtain vascular access, reduce the number of attempts needed to obtain IV access, reduce the ED LOS, and have no negative impact on patient satisfaction compared to the current ED practices.
Many patients in the emergency department have veins that are difficult to get an intrevenous (IV) catheter into (called "difficult IV access"). These patients may require other methods to obtain access to a vein for administration of the necessary medications. The 2-inch long IV is most commonly used in emergency departments for people with difficulty IV access. Typically, a healthcare worker will use an ultrasound to help to see the veins underneath the skin while inserting the IV into the vein. That is, the ultrasound helps the healthcare worker visualize veins that are deeper in the arm and may not be felt through the skin. Another device that can be used is a 4-inch midline catheter. This device is less commonly used as many emergency departments do not have participants available, but it serves the same purpose as the 2-inch long IVs (that is, to give medicine into the vein and sometimes to take blood). A 4-inch midline catheter is similar to a 2-inch long IV, but has a few differences. First, the 4-inch midline catheter is even longer than the 2-inch long IV. The 4-inch midline catheter is 10-cm (about 4-inches or the size of 4 quarters side-by-side), while the 2-inch long IV is 4.78-cm (nearly 2-inches or two quarters side-by-side). Second, the 4-inch midline catheter is inserted into using a guidewire to help move the catheter in the vein (similar in concept to a train moving along a track), while the 2-inch long IV does not have this guidewire. The guidewire does not hurt and most do not know it is being used. It is just an additional step to help guide the catheter in the vein. The investigators are conducting this research study to determine which catheter is better for patients with difficult IV access: the 4-inch midline catheter or the 2-inch long IV.
Hypothesis: The first attempt success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access (difficult IV access \[DIVA\] score ≥ 4) by nurses using the VeinViewer guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement. Specific Aims: 1. To investigate if use of the VeinViewer can improve the success of peripheral IV placement in children with difficult IV access 2. To validate the DIVA score Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial/Convenience sample Subjects: Children (0-18) presenting to the emergency department who require an IV as determined by examining physician and with a DIVA score ≥ 3 during times when VeinViewer machine is available and a VeinViewer trained participating nurse is on duty. Variables: Outcome Variables: First IV attempt success rate Predictor Variables: IV technique used, other potential modifiers (age, weight, height, skin shade, indication for IV, history of prematurity and, vein visibility/palpability after tourniquet) Methods: Subjects who meet inclusion criteria will be randomized to either conventional IV technique or VeinViewer guided technique. The nurse will attempt the IV depending on the randomization. Success or failure on first IV attempt will be recorded. If unsuccessful, other attempts will be tried until a successful IV is placed or the physician decides to give an alternative therapy that does not need IV access. Statistics: A chi square test will be used to compare the proportion of subjects with successful first attempt IV placement using the VeinViewer technique to that using the conventional method with 95% confidence interval. We, the researchers, will look at the median number of attempts to place an IV in each of the groups. Logistic regression will be performed to test for independent associations. Information collected during the study will also be used for validation of the DIVA score. Risks: No extra risks are expected above that of receiving a standard IV. The standard risk of bleeding, bruising, pain, and infection will be possible regardless of technique used. The VeinViewer does not expose the patient the ionizing radiation. The use of the VeinViewer technique may increase the time need to place an IV in. Potential Benefits: With this study, we, the researchers, hope to improve the success rate of children with difficult IV placement in the Emergency Department.
The primary aim of this study is to determine if the insertion of a peripheral Internal Jugular (IJ) catheter is faster than a standard of care intravenous (IV)access in patients with difficult access. The secondary aims of this study examine patient discomfort between standard IV insertion vs. peripheral IV insertion as well as a comparison of complication rates between the two methods of insertion. Support for the peripheral IV procedure could provide an option for the thousands of Emergency Department (ED) patients who daily encounter the situation of difficult IV access and the numerous needle pokes that accompany it. Using this procedure may result in greater patient satisfaction and reduced complication rates.
This study will assess the safety and effectiveness of the Veinplicity device to improve the visualization and palpability of difficult-to-access veins for intravenous cannulation.
The objective of this project is to define the effectiveness and therefore the role of NIR vein finders in adult patients with difficult peripheral venous access. The specific objective of the proposed randomized controlled trial is to test the clinical success rate of placing peripheral venous catheters in 'difficult' access patients using traditional peripheral venous catheter placement compared to two established methods utilizing NIR vein imaging. The investigators hypothesize that the capability to successfully place lasting peripheral venous catheters is increased with the adjunct of the imaging technology, reducing the number of failed needle sticks, reducing the number of peripheral venous catheters placed throughout a patient's hospital stay, and reducing the need for more invasive catheters such as PICC lines.
The primary purpose of this prospective, randomized trial is successful intravenous (IV) cannulation on first attempt with the use of either the Vein Viewer (VV) or standard cannulation method. The secondary purpose is to find out if there is a difference in the total time to successful cannulation.