Cedars Sinai Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, 90048, United States
NCT Number: NCT03841864
Hypothesis The initial use of ultrasound guidance when indicated for difficult peripheral IV access will reduce the number of attempts required to achieve successful peripheral IV insertion and improve patient care and satisfaction.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Los Angeles, California, 90048, United States
Study objective The purpose of this research study is to compare 2 established peripheral IV insertion techniques (traditional vs ultrasound guided) in order to develop an algorithmic approach to peripheral IV insertion. Patient characteristics, medical history and co-morbidities, in addition to a pre-insertion physical exam vein assessment, will allow for the introduction of a vein classification system and a difficult IV insertion algorithm. Selecting the optimal modality for initial IV insertion will decrease the total number of attempts, facilitate appropriate gauge and location of IV insertion, avoid central line placement, decrease IV insertion pain scores and improve patient satisfaction. Currently, ultrasound guided peripheral IV insertion is performed by the IV team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or a trained anesthesia provider as a rescue technique after multiple failed attempts by traditional technique. Secondary to the constraints of both trained providers and equipment resources, the cohort of difficult IV insertion patients are subjected to multiple traditional IV insertion attempts prior to escalation to ultrasound guidance and occasionally, unnecessary central line placements indicated by only poor intravenous access.
Primary end point: Grade 2A vein classification cohort 2nd IV insertion attempt success rate comparison of traditional vs ultrasound guided technique, IV insertion pain scores, Patient satisfaction Secondary end points: Grade 2B and grade 3 vein classification ultrasound guided IV insertion success rate. Grade 1 and 2a vein classification 1st attempt IV insertion success rate. Grade 1 visualization 2nd attempt IV insertion success rate comparison of traditional vs ultrasound guided technique. Difficult IV insertion risk factors and associations, IV gauge and location, central line placement because of inadequate peripheral IV access
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Ultrasound guided IV placement
Time frame: 9 months after patient recruitment begins
IV insertion success rate comparison on the second IV insertion attempt (after after 1x unsuccessful IV insertion using traditional technique) between traditional technique versus ultrasound guidance for grade 1 and 2a visual vein classification grades. For an 80% powered study to detect a 30% difference in success rate, an N of 50 is required in each group. Outcome will be successful vs unsuccessful IV insertion
Time frame: 9 months after patient recruitment begins
Ultrasound IV insertion success rate for grade 2B and grade 3 using ultrasound
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Other
A Comparison of Traditional Technique Peripheral Intravenous [PIV] Catheter Insertion to the Utilization of Ultrasound Guidance for the Development of a Vein Classification System and Difficult IV Insertion Algorithm. A Prospective Observational Study
Acronym: USGPIV
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06993740
Anesthesia, Cardiovascular Diseases
Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
View Trial DetailsNCT07259629
Anesthesia, Glucose Metabolism Disorders
Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom
View Trial DetailsNCT03972423
Anesthesia, Anesthesia Complication
Versailles, IDF, France
View Trial DetailsNCT05111340
Aberrant Motor Behavior in Dementia, Anesthesia
Arras, France
View Trial Details