Single Versus Double Tourniquet Technique for Ultrasound-Guided Venous Catheter Placement

Augmentation of peripheral venous diameter for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line insertion

OBJECTIVES

Ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement is utilized often in the emergency department for venous access in patients whose veins are difficult to cannulate by traditional methods. This study aims to identify specific interventions that will augment venous cross-sectional area.

METHODS

Residents and medical students volunteers each had their basilic vein identified using the linear array probe on an ultrasound. The area of the vein was measured with no intervention with the arm positioned parallel to the floor as well as approximately 45 degrees below the level of the bed. These two positions were repeated with the following interventions: one standard rubber tourniquet applied proximal to the vein measurement, an additional rubber tourniquet applied proximal to first tourniquet, blood pressure cuff inflated to between 160 and 200 mmHg applied proximal to the vein, CAT battle tourniquet application proximal to measurement site, and soaked warm towel applied to brachium for up to one minute. The primary outcome was to evaluate the increase in venous cross-sectional area from the baseline measurement after the interventions.

RESULTS

We had 41 participants in this study. All interventions were statistically significant in increasing venous cross-sectional area as compared to no intervention, with the most significant augmentation being from the CAT battle tourniquet (mean change +7.32 mm2, 95% CI, 5.73-8.91 mm2) . The change in position of the arm, was not statistically significant for any intervention except for the CAT tourniquet (mean change -1.74 mm2, 95% CI, -0.54 to -2.93 mm2). There was no significant difference between two tourniquets and blood pressure cuff (mean change +0.58 mm2, 95% CI, -1.13 to +2.29 mm2), but there was a significant increase in cross-sectional area with CAT tourniquet use compared to blood pressure cuff (mean change +1.62 mm2, 95% CI, 0.29-2.95 mm2). Lastly, two tourniquets increased cross- sectional area compared to one tourniquet (mean change +2.20 mm2, 95% CI, 1.14 - +3.26 mm2).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified several potential interventions for maximizing venous cross-sectional area on ultrasound. All the tested interventions resulted in statistically significant increases in cross-sectional area. Arm positioning did not show significant changes in most interventions, with the exception of the CAT tourniquet. Further studies should be performed on how these maneuvers affect success in ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement.

Effectiveness of ultrasonography for peripheral catheter insertion and catheter failure prevention in visible and palpable veins

BACKGROUND

The increase in the success rate of peripheral intravenous catheterization against a difficult intravenous access (DIVA) using ultrasonography is reported; however, reports related to the effectiveness of using ultrasonography in increasing the success rate for visible and palpable veins is limited. Furthermore, according to a previous study, first attempt success in catheterization contributes to low catheter failure incidence. Thus, we developed a catheterization method using ultrasonography for peripheral veins including visible and palpable veins. This study investigates the effectiveness of ultrasonography use in improving the success rate of catheterization and preventing the catheter failure for peripheral veins including visible and palpable veins.

METHODS

Adult inpatients were recruited. Trained nurses inserted intravenous catheters using ultrasonography. Ultrasonography was used for all vein assessment, target vein selection, and puncturing (i.e. target point selection and/or needle guidance), regardless of the target vein's visibility or palpability. Catheters with over a 24-h dwelling time were followed for catheter failure incidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were recruited, and they required 34 catheterizations. Total number of catheterization attempts were 39. Of the peripheral veins, 51.3% (20/39) were visible and palpable, 48.7% (19/39) were DIVA. The rate of successful intravenous cannulation was 29 of 34 (85.3%) after one attempt and 4 of 34 (total 97.0%) after two attempts. The catheterization failure incidence was 3.2% (1/31) in the catheter that had an over 24-h dwelling time.

CONCLUSIONS

Using ultrasonography to all target veins might have contributed to higher success rates of catheterization and extremely low incidence of catheter failure based on objective findings. Selecting the vein with larger diameters and healthy tissue as puncture point and showing center of vessel lumen clearly using ultrasonography might have been contributed the results.

Can Non-Physician Providers Use Ultrasound to Aid in Establishing Peripheral IV Access in Patients Who are Difficult to Cannulate? A Scoping Review

Introduction:

Non-physician performed point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is emerging as a diagnostic adjunct with the potential to enhance current practice. The scope of POCUS utility is broad and well-established in-hospital, yet limited research has occurred in the out-of-hospital environment. Many physician-based studies expound the value of POCUS in the acute setting as a therapeutic and diagnostic tool. This study utilized a scoping review methodology to map the literature pertaining to non-physician use of POCUS to improve success of peripheral intravenous access (PIVA), especially in patients predicted to be difficult to cannulate.

Methods:

Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from January 1, 1990 through April 15, 2021. A thorough search of the grey literature and reference lists of relevant articles was also performed to identify additional studies. Articles were included if they examined non-physician utilization of ultrasound-guided PIVA (USGPIVA) for patients anticipated to be difficult to cannulate.

Results:

A total of 158 articles were identified. A total of 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants had varied experience with ultrasound, making accurate comparison difficult. Training and education were non-standardized, as was the approach to determining difficult intravenous access (DIVA). Despite this, the majority of the studies demonstrated high first attempt and overall success rates for PIVA performed by non-physicians.

Conclusion:

Non-physician USGPIVA appears to be a superior method for PIVA when difficulty is anticipated. Additional benefits include reduced requirement for central venous catheter (CVC) or intraosseous (IO) needle placement. Paramedics, nurses, and emergency department (ED) technicians are able to achieve competence in this skill with relatively little training. Further research is required to explore the utility of this practice in the out-of-hospital environment.

Management of difficult intravenous access: a qualitative review

BACKGROUND

A perennial challenge faced by clinicians and made even more relevant with the global obesity epidemic, difficult intravenous access (DIVA) adversely impacts patient outcomes by causing significant downstream delays with many aspects of diagnoses and therapy. As most published DIVA strategies are limited to various point-of-care ultrasound techniques while other "tricks-of-the-trade" and pearls for overcoming DIVA are mostly relegated to informal nonpublished material, this article seeks to provide a narrative qualitative review of the iterature on DIVA and consolidate these strategies into a practical algorithm.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on PubMed using the keywords "difficult intravenous access", "peripheral vascular access" and "peripheral venous access" and searched emergency medicine and anaesthesiology resources for relevant material. These strategies were then categorized and incorporated into a DIVA algorithm.

RESULTS

We propose a Vortex approach to DIVA that is modelled after the Difficult Airway Vortex concept starting off with standard peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC) techniques, progressing sequentially on to ultrasound-guided cannulation and central venous cannulation and finally escalating to the most invasive intraosseous access should the patient be in extremis or should best efforts with the other lifelines fail.

CONCLUSION

DIVA is a perennial problem that healthcare providers across various disciplines will be increasingly challenged with. It is crucial to have a systematic stepwise approach such as the DIVA Vortex when managing such patients and have at hand a wide repertoire of techniques to draw upon.

The practical integration of a hybrid model of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access in a large apheresis center

BACKGROUND

Apheresis treatments require adequate venous access using peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheterization or central venous catheters (CVC). Ultrasound-guided PIV (USGPIV) can be used to decrease the need of CVC insertions for apheresis procedures.

METHOD

A hybrid model of USGPIV and standard of care (SOC) for PIV access was developed. Nurses performed USGPIV on all patients considered for PIV access if felt SOC PIV access was not possible. Information was collected regarding nurses' confidence with access, number of attempts required, site of access, complications, and need for CVC.

RESULTS

In all, 226 PIV access attempts were made during a 2-month period. All apheresis procedure types were represented. A total 65% were accessed by SOC and 35% by USGPIV. USGPIV was successful on first try on 90% draw/inlet access and 87% successful on first try on return access. Access above the antecubital fossa was required in 31% of USGPIV for draw/inlet veins, and 22% of return veins. Nurses' confidence with accessing PIV was increased by USGPIV, based on 7-point Likert scale assessments. During the recording period, 2/226 (0.9%) apheresis procedures required a CVC. In a separate cohort of only hematopoietic progenitor cell collections, CVC insertion was required in 44/238 (18.5%) patients, in 7 months prior to adoption of USGPIV and 5/152 (3.3%) patients in 7 months following adoption of USGPIV.

CONCLUSION

A hybrid model of using SOC and USGPIV for PIV access for apheresis procedures resulted in decreased need for CVC access, high levels of successful initial access attempts, and increased nursing confidence in PIV access.