Cargando…

Efficacy of Infrared Vein Visualization versus Standard Technique for Peripheral Venous Cannulation in Infant and Toddler Populations: A Randomized Study

Establishing intravenous (IV) access in younger patient populations via the traditional cannulation technique for procedures requiring anesthesia is often challenging. Infrared (IR) vein visualization is a modality that aids venous cannulation; however, few reports of this technique exist in the inf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fehr, Graham, Rigali, Marisa, Weller, Gregory, Grap, Shannon M., Coleman, Melissa, Parekh, Uma, Chinchilli, Vernon M., Dalal, Priti G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10605772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37892315
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/children10101652
Descripción
Sumario:Establishing intravenous (IV) access in younger patient populations via the traditional cannulation technique for procedures requiring anesthesia is often challenging. Infrared (IR) vein visualization is a modality that aids venous cannulation; however, few reports of this technique exist in the infant and toddler population. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of IR vein visualization to the standard cannulation technique for obtaining peripheral IV access in infant and toddler populations. Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and written informed consent, children were randomly assigned to either a standard cannulation technique group or an IR vein visualization device group for venous cannulation. The primary outcome variable was the success rate of IV cannulation, and the secondary variables were the total number of attempts and the time to successful cannulation. No difference was noted between either group for first-attempt success rate (standard versus IR: 61.25% vs. 54.4%; p = 0.4) or time to establish IV cannulation (standard versus IR: median [interquartile range], 40 s [24–120] vs. 53 s [26–106]; p = 0.55). The anesthesiologist’s grading of the anticipated difficulty of IV cannulation was a significant predictor of cannulation success (p = 0.0016). Our study demonstrated no significant benefit in utilizing the IR vein visualization device in terms of the overall success rate, number of attempts, and time to establish successful IV cannulation when compared to the standard technique. However, in difficult IV access situations, this device proved to be a valuable rescue adjunct.