Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2022
A comparison of first-attempt cannulation success of peripheral venous catheter systems with and without wings and injection ports in surgical patients-a randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02213965 (Clinical Investigation Acc. to MPG §23b), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Clinical Investigation Acc. to MPG §23b: Open-label Prospective Study Comparing the Handling of the Handling of Two Peripheral IV Catheter (PIV) Systems (Ported and Non Ported) in Randomized Order
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is the most widely used device for obtaining vascular access, allowing the administration of fluids and medication. Up to 25% of adult patients, and 50% of pediatric patients experience a first-attempt cannulation failure. In addition to patient and clinician characteristics, device features might affect the handling and success rates. The objective of the study was to compare the first-attempt cannulation success rate between PVCs with wings and a port access (Vasofix® Safety, B. Braun, abbreviated hereon in as VS) with those without (Introcan® Safety, B. Braun, abbreviated hereon in as IS) in an anesthesiological cohort.
methodsAn open label, multi-center, randomized trial was performed. First-attempt cannulation success rates were examined, along with relevant patient, clinician, and device characteristics with univariate and multivariate analyses. Information on handling and adherence to use instructions was gathered, and available catheters were assessed for damage.
resultsTwo thousand three hundred four patients were included in the intention to treat analysis. First-attempt success rate was significantly higher with winged and ported catheters (VS) than with the non-winged, non-ported design (IS) (87.5% with VS vs. 78.2% with IS; P
conclusionsFirst-attempt cannulation success of peripheral, ported, winged catheters was higher compared to non-ported, non-winged devices. The handling of the winged and ported design was better rated by the clinicians. Needle reinsertions are related to an increase in rates of catheter damage and cannulation failure.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02213965 , Date: 12/08/2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.