What is the Least Painful Method of Anesthetizing a Peripheral IV Site?
The placement of an intravenous (IV) catheter for the administration of fluids, blood products, and medications is a common intervention for surgical procedures and perianesthesia patients. Although the placement of a peripheral IV may be routine for perianesthesia nurses, it is important to address the patient's level of pain related to the procedure. One technique to diminish the discomfort associated with the IV insertion is anesthetizing the site. The purpose of this study was to compare three methods for anesthetizing peripheral IV catheter sites before insertion to determine which method provides optimal patient comfort during the anesthetizing and IV catheter insertion process. The findings demonstrate that there was no statistical difference in pain when anesthetizing the site using the three methods. However, there was a difference with the IV insertion process. Using 1% lidocaine resulted in the least painful IV insertion.
Available from: sciencedirect.com
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The performance of a new safety peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) that contains a blood control feature in the hub (blood control) was compared against the current hospital standard without blood control (standard).
In this prospective, non-blinded trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either device. Insertions were performed and rated by emergency room nurses. Primary endpoints included clinical acceptability, incidence of blood leakage, and risk of blood exposure. Secondary endpoints were digital compression, insertion success, and usability.
15 clinicians performed 152 PIVC insertions (73 blood control, 79 standard). Clinical acceptability of the blood control device (100%) was non-inferior to the standard (98.7%) (p < 0.0001). The blood control device had a lower incidence of blood leakage (14.1% vs 68.4%), was superior in eliminating the risk of blood exposure (93.9% vs 19.1%) and the need for digital compression (95.3% vs 19.1%), while maintaining non-inferior insertion success rates (95.9% vs 93.7%) and usability ratings (p < 0.0001).
In comparison with the hospital-standard, the new safety PIVC with integrated blood control valve had similar clinical acceptability ratings yet demonstrated superior advantages to both clinicians and patients to decrease blood leakage and the clinician's risk of blood exposure, during the insertion process.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.