Suppr超能文献

Prospective, randomized controlled comparison of a flash-tip catheter and a traditional intravenous catheter in an urban emergency department.

作者信息

Moayedi Siamak, Witting Michael, Hirshon Jon Mark, George Nicholas, Burke Alise, Schenkel Stephen

机构信息

1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Access. 2018 Jul;19(4):387-391. doi: 10.1177/1129729817747530. Epub 2018 Mar 5.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Safe and efficient intravenous access is paramount to the practice of emergency medicine. We compared the first-stick success rates and blood spillage of two peripheral intravenous catheters in a busy urban emergency department.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we assigned emergency department patients requiring peripheral intravenous access to use of either a flash-tip catheter (SurFlash Plus, Terumo Medical Corporation, Somerset, New Jersey) or a widely used control catheter (Insyte Autoguard; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey). We compared frequency of first-stick success and blood contamination between catheters using chi-squared analysis.

RESULTS

We enrolled 600 patients, randomizing 309 to the flash-tip catheter and 291 to the control catheter. The first-stick success rate of each device was 79%. Blood contamination, defined as spillage of blood on the patient's skin, bedding, or the inserter, occurred in 8 of 309 cases (2.6%) with the flash-tip catheter versus 92 of 291 cases (31.6%) for the control catheter.

CONCLUSION

The two catheters tested in this study had comparable rates of first-stick success, but the flash-tip catheter was associated with significantly less blood contamination during insertion attempts.

摘要

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验