Comparison of Local Infection, Dwell Time and Pain in Peripheral Venous Cannulation passed by Experts versus General Inserters at a Tertiary Care Hospital

Elleyyeen Avais; Syed Anees Ahmed Gardezi; Muhammad Uzair; Muhammad Iqbal; Hassan Javed

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-7.11019

Authors

Elleyyeen Avais Department of General Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Syed Anees Ahmed Gardezi Department of General Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Uzair Department of General Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan
Muhammad Iqbal Department of General Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4114-5377
Hassan Javed Department of General Medicine, Pak Emirates Military Hospital/National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-7.11019

Keywords:

Cannulation, Infection, Pain, Visual Analogue Scale

Abstract

Objective: To compare the incidence of local infection, Dwell time and pain associated with peripheral venous cannulation (PVC) when performed by experts versus general inserters in a tertiary care hospital.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial (IRCT20230925059510N1).

Place and Duration of Study: Inpatient Departments, Pak Emirates Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Apr to Sep 2023.

Methodology: Patients were randomized into Group-A (insertion by experts) and Group-B (insertion by general staff) with 175 participants each. Primary variables measured were total dwell time, incidence of local site infection, failure of insertion by the inserter, pain as assessed on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction assessed by a 7-point standard Likert Scale (0=Extremely dissatisfied to 7=Extremely satisfied).

Results: Failure of insertion was seen in 05(2.9%) patients in Group-A versus 40(22.9%) patients in Group-B (p=0.045). Assessment of median pain scores on insertion on the Visual Analog Scale showed median scores of 3.00 (IQR=0.00) in Group-A versus 4.00 (IQR=1.00) in Group-B (p<0.001). Patient satisfaction post-procedure as assessed on standard 7-point Likert Scale showed median satisfaction scores of 6.00 (IQR=1.00) in Group-A versus 4.00 (IQR=1.00) in Group-B.

Conclusion: We concluded that even though expert inserters result in decreased failure rates and better patient pain scores and compliance, their availability as a separate team in resource constrained setups cannot be recommended at present.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Van Loon FH, Scholten HJ, Van Erp I, Bouwman AR, Van Daele ATD. Establishing the required components for training in ultrasound guided peripheral intravenous cannulation: a systematic review of available evidence. Med Ultrason 2019; 21(4): 464-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.11152/mu-2120

2. Treffalls J, Portillo D, Friesenhahn S, Copeland G, Hood R. The Occurrence of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Complications and an Evaluation of the Methods Utilized to Mitigate Them. J Nurs Patient Health Care 2021; 3(1): 102.

https://doi.org/10.15744/2767-9292.3.102

3. Resnick O, Abu Ahmad W, Bancovsky D, Rogachev S, Ashash A, Ohana SCL, et al. Predicting factors for complications in peripheral intravenous catheters in the pediatric population. Acta Paediatr 2021; 110(5): 1639-15644.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15687

4. Timsit J-F, Baleine J, Bernard L, Calvino-Gunther S, Darmon M, Dellamonica J, et al. Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit. Ann Intensive Care 2020; 10(1): 1-26.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15687

5. Marsh N, Webster J, Ullman AJ, Mihala G, Cooke M, Chopra V, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter non‐infectious complications in adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Adv Nurs 2020; 76(12): 3346-3362.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14565

6. Sweeny A, Archer-Jones A, Watkins S, Johnson L, Gunter A, Rickard C. The experience of patients at high risk of difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation: an Australian prospective observational study. Australas Emerg Care 2022; 25(2): 140-146.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2021.07.003

7. Indarwati F, Mathew S, Munday J, Keogh S. Incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter failure and complications in paediatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2020; 102: 103488.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103488

8. Yılmaz H, Karacan Y, Macun S, Evrensel T. The effect of using vein visualization devices to facilitate peripheral intravenous cannulation on pain, fear, and patient satisfaction in adult oncology patients: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer 2025; 33(12): 1123.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-10187-4

9. Taherdoost H. What is the best response scale for survey and questionnaire design; review of different lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. Int J Acad Res Manag 2019;8.

10. Plohal A. A qualitative study of adult hospitalized patients with difficult venous access experiencing short peripheral catheter insertion in a hospital setting. J Infus Nurs 2021; 44(1): 26-33.

https://doi.org/0.1097/NAN.0000000000000408

11. Nickel B, Gorski L, Kleidon T, Kyes A, DeVries M, Keogh S, et al. Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2024; 47(1S): S1-285.

https://doi.org/h10.1097/NAN.0000000000000532

12. Schults JA, Calleja P, Slaughter E, Paterson R, Rickard CM, Booker C, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion and use of ultrasound in patients with difficult intravenous access: Australian patient and practitioner perspectives to inform future implementation strategies. Plos One 2022; 17(6): e0269788.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269788

13. Rickard CM, Larsen E, Walker RM, Mihala G, Byrnes J, Saiyed M, et al. Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Med 2023; 18(1): 21-32.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.12995

14. Moreau N. Value and Evidence for Vascular Access Specialist Teams. Infect Control Today 2022; 26(7): 27-29.

15. Walker RM, Pires MPO, Ray-Barruel G, Cooke M, Mihala G, Azevedo SS, et al. Peripheral vascular catheter use in Latin America (the vascular study): A multinational cross-sectional study. Front Med 2023; 9(1): 1039232.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1039232

16. Kaplan A, Korkut S, Avsarogullari OL. Comparison of procedure-related pain and patient satisfaction according to catheter size and insertion site in peripheral intravenous catheterization. J Vasc Access 2023: 11297298231190250.

https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298231190250

17. Marsh N, Larsen EN, Takashima M, Kleidon T, Keogh S, Ullman AJ, et al. Peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of risks from 11,830 catheters. Int J Nurs Stud 2021; 124: 104095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104095

18. Behairy AS, Abdel Hakeim EH, El-Naby A, Gomaa A. Effect of Nursing Training Regarding Peripheral Intravenous Cannula on Nurses Performance and Incidence of Complications. Assiut Sci Nurs J 2023; 11(38): 100-111.

https://doi.org/10.21608/asnj.2023.222434.1634

19. Mandal A, Raghu K. Study on incidence of phlebitis following the use of peripheral intravenous catheter. J Family Med Prim Care 2019; 8(9): 2827-2831.

https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_559_19

20. Zhang L, Cao S, Marsh N, Ray-Barruel G, Flynn J, Larsen E, et al. Infection risks associated with peripheral vascular catheters. J Infect Prev 2016; 17(5): 207-213.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177416655472