Clinical performance of a new blood control peripheral intravenous catheter: A prospective, randomized, controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The performance of a new safety peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) that contains a blood control feature in the hub (blood control) was compared against the current hospital standard without blood control (standard). METHODS: In this prospective, non-blinded trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either device. Insertions were performed and rated by emergency room nurses. Primary endpoints included clinical acceptability, incidence of blood leakage, and risk of blood exposure. Secondary endpoints were digital compression, insertion success, and usability. RESULTS: 15 clinicians performed 152 PIVC insertions (73 blood control, 79 standard). Clinical acceptability of the blood control device (100%) was non-inferior to the standard (98.7%) (p < 0.0001). The blood control device had a lower incidence of blood leakage (14.1% vs 68.4%), was superior in eliminating the risk of blood exposure (93.9% vs 19.1%) and the need for digital compression (95.3% vs 19.1%), while maintaining non-inferior insertion success rates (95.9% vs 93.7%) and usability ratings (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: In comparison with the hospital-standard, the new safety PIVC with integrated blood control valve had similar clinical acceptability ratings yet demonstrated superior advantages to both clinicians and patients to decrease blood leakage and the clinician's risk of blood exposure, during the insertion process.

The costs of fluid overload in the adult intensive care unit: is a small-volume infusion model a proactive solution?

PURPOSE: Fluid overload (FO) in critically ill patients remains a challenging clinical dilemma, and many continuous intravenous (IV) medications in the US are being delivered as a dilute solution, adding significantly to a patient's daily intake. This study describes the costs and outcomes of FO in patients receiving multiple continuous infusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a hospital administrative database covering >500 US hospitals. An FO cohort included adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a central line receiving IV loop diuretics and 2+ continuous IV infusions on 50%+ of their ICU days; a directly matched non-FO cohort included patients without IV diuretic use. The primary outcome of the study was total hospitalization costs per visit. Additional outcomes were ICU costs, mortality, total and ICU length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, and ventilator use. Unadjusted descriptive analysis was performed using chi-squared or paired t-tests to compare outcomes between the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 63,974 patients were identified in each cohort. The total hospitalization cost per visit for the FO cohort was US$15,344 higher than the non-FO cohort (US$42,386 vs US$27,042), and the ICU cost for the FO cohort was US$5,243 higher than the non-FO cohort (US$10,902 vs US$5,659). FO patients had higher mortality (20% vs 16.8%), prolonged LOS (11.5 vs 8.0 days), longer ICU LOS (6.2 vs 3.6 days), higher risk of 30-day readmission (21.8% vs 21.3%), and ventilator usage (47.7% vs 28.3%) than the non-FO cohort (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving multiple continuous infusions, FO is associated with increased health care resources and costs. Maximally concentrating medications and proactively providing continuous medications in small-volume infusions (SVI) could be a potential solution to prevent iatrogenic FO in critically ill patients. Further prospective research is warranted to assess the impact of the SVI dispensing model on patient outcomes and health care costs.

Demonstration of compatibility of multiple arterial blood gas syringes with current multi-parameter analyzers.

OBJECTIVE: Since there is a lack of current evidence to support the compatibility of the most commonly used arterial blood gas syringes with the latest multi-parameter analyzers, the objective of this study was to assess the agreement of analyte values between three heparinized arterial blood gas syringes using three different analyzers. METHODS: Venous blood from 25 healthy volunteers was drawn into the study syringes (BD Drihep A-Line, PICO50, and Portex Line Draw Plus) by four clinician volunteers in a random order (441 total) and immediately (<15 minutes) analyzed (ABL800 FLEX, RAPIDPoint 500, i-STAT System) in a randomized order. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement of analyte values between the syringes for each analyzer. The results by analyte and analyzer were compared across syringes using one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's approach was used to identify statistically significant differences between pairs of syringes. RESULTS: Comparison of the syringes' mean differences and standard deviations showed close agreement for all three analyzers. There were no statistically significant differences between syringes in 14 of the analytes for any of the analyzers (p > 0.05). For RAPIDPoint and i-STAT, the Ca(2+) value was significantly less for A-Line than for the other syringes. The value for Na(+) was significantly greater for the PICO50 than the A-Line and Line Draw syringes with the i-STAT. Both results were within two standard deviations of the mean of the other two syringes and are not considered clinically significant; however, comparisons were not made between the values from the different analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: Dry-balanced lithium heparin ABG syringes used for blood draws should provide reliable results, regardless of syringe type, provided that the clinicians use proper pre-analytical techniques.