Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Newly Developed Needle in Emergency Room: A Single-Center Observational Study.

Pub Date : 2024-07-31 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2478/jccm-2024-0025
Yuki Kishihara, Hideto Yasuda, Masahiro Kashiura, Takatoshi Oishi, Yutaro Shinzato, Takashi Moriya
{"title":"Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Newly Developed Needle in Emergency Room: A Single-Center Observational Study.","authors":"Yuki Kishihara, Hideto Yasuda, Masahiro Kashiura, Takatoshi Oishi, Yutaro Shinzato, Takashi Moriya","doi":"10.2478/jccm-2024-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim of the study: </strong>Peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC) insertion is frequently performed in the emergency room (ER) and many failures of initial PIVC insertion occur. To reduce the failures, new needles were developed. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of the newly developed needle reduced the failure of initial PIVC insertion in the ER compared with the use of the existing needle.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This single-centre, prospective observational study was conducted in Japan between April 1, 2022, and February 2, 2023. We included consecutive patients who visited our hospital by ambulance as a secondary emergency on a weekday during the day shift (from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). The practitioners for PIVC insertion and assessors were independent. The primary and secondary outcomes were the failure of initial PIVC insertion and number of procedures, respectively. We defined the difficulty of titrating, leakage, and hematoma within 30 s after insertion as failures. To evaluate the association between the outcomes and the use of newly developed needles, we performed multivariate logistic regression and multiple regression analyses by adjusting for covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 522 patients without missing data were analysed, and 81 (15.5%) patients showed failure of initial PIVC insertion. The median number of procedures (interquartile range) was 1 (1-1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the failure of initial PIVC insertion (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, [0.48-1.31]; p = 0.36). Moreover, multiple regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the number of procedures (regression coefficient, -0.0042; 95% confidence interval, [-0.065-0.056]; p = 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study did not show a difference between the two types of needles with respect to the failure of initial PIVC insertion and the number of procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295137/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2024-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim of the study: Peripheral intravascular catheter (PIVC) insertion is frequently performed in the emergency room (ER) and many failures of initial PIVC insertion occur. To reduce the failures, new needles were developed. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of the newly developed needle reduced the failure of initial PIVC insertion in the ER compared with the use of the existing needle.

Material and methods: This single-centre, prospective observational study was conducted in Japan between April 1, 2022, and February 2, 2023. We included consecutive patients who visited our hospital by ambulance as a secondary emergency on a weekday during the day shift (from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM). The practitioners for PIVC insertion and assessors were independent. The primary and secondary outcomes were the failure of initial PIVC insertion and number of procedures, respectively. We defined the difficulty of titrating, leakage, and hematoma within 30 s after insertion as failures. To evaluate the association between the outcomes and the use of newly developed needles, we performed multivariate logistic regression and multiple regression analyses by adjusting for covariates.

Results: In total, 522 patients without missing data were analysed, and 81 (15.5%) patients showed failure of initial PIVC insertion. The median number of procedures (interquartile range) was 1 (1-1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the failure of initial PIVC insertion (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, [0.48-1.31]; p = 0.36). Moreover, multiple regression analysis revealed no significant association between the use of newly developed PIVCs and the number of procedures (regression coefficient, -0.0042; 95% confidence interval, [-0.065-0.056]; p = 0.89).

Conclusions: Our study did not show a difference between the two types of needles with respect to the failure of initial PIVC insertion and the number of procedures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
评估急诊室新开发针头的效率:单中心观察研究
研究目的外周血管导管(PIVC)插入术经常在急诊室(ER)进行,初次插入 PIVC 时会出现许多失败。为了减少失败,人们开发了新的针头。本研究旨在探讨与使用现有针头相比,使用新开发的针头是否减少了急诊室首次插入 PIVC 的失败率:这项单中心前瞻性观察研究于 2022 年 4 月 1 日至 2023 年 2 月 2 日在日本进行。我们纳入了在工作日白班(上午 8:00 至下午 5:00)期间乘坐救护车到我院就诊的二级急诊连续患者。插入 PIVC 的医生和评估人员均为独立人员。主要和次要结果分别是首次插入 PIVC 的失败率和手术次数。我们将插入后 30 秒内的滴注困难、渗漏和血肿定义为失败。为了评估结果与使用新开发针头之间的关系,我们通过调整协变量进行了多变量逻辑回归和多元回归分析:共对 522 名无数据缺失的患者进行了分析,其中 81 名(15.5%)患者的首次 PIVC 插入失败。手术中位数(四分位间范围)为 1(1-1)次。多变量逻辑回归分析表明,使用新开发的 PIVC 与首次 PIVC 插入失败之间没有明显关联(几率比 0.79;95% 置信区间 [0.48-1.31];P = 0.36)。此外,多元回归分析表明,使用新开发的 PIVC 与手术次数之间没有明显关联(回归系数,-0.0042;95% 置信区间,[-0.065-0.056];P = 0.89):我们的研究结果表明,在首次插入 PIVC 失败率和手术次数方面,两种类型的针头没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1