Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This randomized controlled crossover study, conducted in a university hospital, aimed to compare the success of the first attempt at peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion using 2 technologies of the visualization of veins in children at risk of difficult intravenous access (DIVA) guided by light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or infrared radiation (IR). The allocation of the type of technology initially used was determined by randomization. The primary outcome was successful insertion of the PIVC on first attempt. Data were analyzed using the McNemar test, paired t-test, and multiple logistic regression models. This crossover study included 143 children: 69 in Group A and 74 in Group B. The first-attempt PIVC insertion success rate with IR and LED was 65.2% and 44.9% in Group A and 55.4% and 50.0% in Group B, respectively, without statistical significance (P = .720). The results also showed that 51.5% of patients with difficult-to-see vessels (P = .022) and 49.8% with previous complications related to intravenous therapy (P = .008) had first-attempt PIVC insertion success using either transillumination device. The first-attempt PIVC insertion success was statistically similar between the groups. The device also assists in visualizing the veins in children at risk of DIVA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Floriano et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: