Premium
Perceived Difficulty and Success Rate of Standard Versus Ultrasound‐Guided Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation in a Novice Study Group
Author(s) -
Vitto Michael J.,
Myers Melissa,
Vitto Christina M.,
Evans David P.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of ultrasound in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.574
H-Index - 91
eISSN - 1550-9613
pISSN - 0278-4297
DOI - 10.7863/ultra.15.06057
Subject(s) - medicine , peripheral , randomized controlled trial , gold standard (test) , surgery , vein , concomitant , trainer , anesthesia , computer science , programming language
Objectives To our knowledge, no previous studies have evaluated the perceived levels of difficulty between traditional and ultrasound (US)‐guided peripheral intravenous (IV) access in the novice provider. We attempt to show that, in a group of medical students who have limited peripheral IV experience, US‐guided peripheral IV cannulation can be achieved more effectively and with a lesser degree of difficulty than standard peripheral IV cannulation. Methods We performed a randomized crossover study of 61 first‐ and second‐year medical students. After a 1‐hour training session, participants were randomized to either standard cannulation on a standard peripheral IV trainer or US‐guided cannulation on a standard US IV trainer. Results One hundred percent (61 of 61) of the participants in the US‐guided IV group successfully achieved cannulation versus 56% (34 of 61) of the participants in the standard IV group ( P < .001). The average number of attempts to obtain access in the US‐guided IV group was 1.31 versus 2.16 in the standard IV group ( P < .001). The average difficulty score assigned to US‐guided cannulation was 2.81 of 10 versus 3.90 of 10 in the standard IV group ( P = .003). Conclusions Our study shows a decrease in perceived difficulty and a concomitant increased ability to cannulate a vein using US versus traditional landmark guidance techniques, even in the novice phlebotomist.