Key result
Vascular ultrasound did not significantly improve the success of peripheral venipuncture compared to the standard landmark method (P = .059), but resulted in a higher frequency of infiltration (P = .025).
Why the study?
Does vascular ultrasound improve the success of peripheral venipuncture in pediatric patients?
RCT (n=382)
Does vascular ultrasound improve the success of peripheral venipuncture in pediatric patients?
p-value: p=.059
In pediatric patients, ultrasound-guided peripheral IV access does not significantly improve success rates compared to the standard landmark method and may increase the risk of infiltration.
Ultrasound does not improve pediatric venipuncture success and increases infiltration; does not support routine use and challenges assumptions of benefit.
A prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the success of peripheral venipuncture in pediatric patients using vascular ultrasound and standard landmark methods and the occurrence of infiltration and phlebitis. The sample was composed of 382 venipunctures; 188 (49.2%) were performed with vascular ultrasound, and 194 (50.8%) were performed using the standard landmark method. No significant difference (P = .059) was found between either method in the success of peripheral venipuncture. A higher frequency of infiltration was found (P = .025) in the vascular ultrasound group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avelar et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Pediatric patients requiring peripheral venipuncture (n=382). Vascular ultrasound vs. Standard landmark method was evaluated on Success of peripheral venipuncture (p=.059). Vascular ultrasound did not significantly improve the success of peripheral venipuncture compared to the standard landmark method (P = .059), but resulted in a higher frequency of infiltration (P = .025).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: