Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Making needles less prickly

David R.R. Lardner and Adam O. Spencer
CMAJ September 22, 2015 187 (13) 996-997; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1150059
David R.R. Lardner
Alberta Children’s Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adam O. Spencer
Alberta Children’s Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We read with great interest the article by Curtis and colleagues, in which the authors conclude that current evidence does not support investing in ultrasound or near-infrared imaging for routine intravenous (IV) catheterization in children.1 We contend that such a broad conclusion is not warranted based on the design of the study.

Figure
Image courtesy of mactrunk/iStock

Ultrasound has a role in placing the difficult IV. A recent meta-analysis2 concluded that in patients with difficult peripheral venous access, using a direct, real-time, ultrasound-guided approach increased success rates of peripheral IV insertion when compared with the standard approach, but had no effect on the time or number of punctures to successful cannulation. In their discussion, Curtis and colleagues1 touch on whether the nurses were trained well enough, but then describe the training as “comprehensive.”

For ultrasound-guided IV insertion, appropriate choice of vein for the technique being used, probe manipulation, and target site and needle visualization are all important skills. For freehand use of ultrasound-guided IV placement in adults, 17 (interquartile range 15–27.5) attempts are required to develop a satisfactory rate of placement when using adult phantom models.3

Based on the data presented, we cannot conclude that the nurses were trained to a satisfactory standard as there was no assessment of success rates achieved on phantoms. An alternative approach is practice of a technique on patients that is supervised by recognized experts. This did not occur either.

No description of maintenance of skill using the technologies over the time of the study was described. It is concerning that only 17 nurses performed cannulation seven or more times for the study. In effect, over the 25-month period of the study, they may only have used the ancillary devices at most on two or three occasions. The majority of the 83 nurses used the technology less frequently than that. We doubt that this rate is sufficient to maintain a satisfactory skill level.

Based on their study design, we believe a more correct conclusion would have been: for routine IV placement in a setting where nurses perform IV cannulation infrequently, the addition of near-infrared and ultrasound technologies, when implemented without confirmation of skill acquisition and no facility for maintenance of skill, does not result in higher success rates of IV placement. We believe if investment in such technology is to be clinically successful, it must be accompanied by investment in training so that staff are able to use the technique with sufficient frequency to maintain their skills.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Curtis SJ,
    2. Craig WR,
    3. Logue E,
    4. et al
    . Ultrasound or near-infrared vascular imaging to guide peripheral intravenous catheterisation in children: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2015;187:563–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Stolz LA,
    2. Stolz U,
    3. Howe C,
    4. et al
    . Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous accesss: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access 2015 Feb. 4 [Epub ahead of print].
  3. ↵
    1. Jaffer U,
    2. Normahani P,
    3. Singh P,
    4. et al
    . Randomized study of teaching ultrasound-guided vascular cannulation using a phantom and the freehand versus needle guide-assisted puncture techniques. J Clin Ultrasound 2015 Feb. 20 [Epub ahead of print].
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 187 (13)
CMAJ
Vol. 187, Issue 13
22 Sep 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Making needles less prickly
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Making needles less prickly
David R.R. Lardner, Adam O. Spencer
CMAJ Sep 2015, 187 (13) 996-997; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1150059

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Making needles less prickly
David R.R. Lardner, Adam O. Spencer
CMAJ Sep 2015, 187 (13) 996-997; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1150059
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The authors respond to criticisms of their model parameters
  • Error in key model input
  • Study authors don’t consider waning SARS-CoV-2 immunity after vaccination in their model
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire