{"title":"一项随机对照研究,比较 Instaflash 技术的首针成功率:FIRSST 研究。","authors":"Arun Mavaji Seetharam, Umashankar Raju, K Suresh","doi":"10.1177/11297298221080369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in clinical settings for intravenous access. Multiple attempts of PIVC insertions leads to patient discomfort, delay in treatment, associated complications, and extensive expenditure cost. Reduced number of attempts causes patient/nursing personnel satisfaction and expenditure costs. The present study evaluated performance efficacy of BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology (investigational device) as compared to the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology (control device).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The PIVC insertions were randomized in the ratio 1:1 using either investigational or control device and were monitored for first stick success rate, ease of insertion, and patient satisfaction. Data was analyzed using R 4.0.3 and Microsoft Excel. Chi square test was used to establish association between two categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 1402 patients were analyzed for first attempt insertion success which showed 98.72% success rate in investigational device as compared to 88.87% success rate in case of the control device (<i>p</i> = 0.0004). Marginal differences were observed in ease of insertion in investigational (98.71%) and control devices (99%) signifying high satisfaction levels of nursing personnels. Positive responses were observed in investigational (98.01%) and control devices (99%) underlining satisfactory performances of overall patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study showed that BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology enhanced first attempt insertion success rate along with marginal differences in its efficacy in comparison with the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology thus enhancing patient and nursing personnel satisfaction in turn making it a better alternative to be used in hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":35321,"journal":{"name":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomized controlled study to compare first stick success with Instaflash technology: The FIRSST study.\",\"authors\":\"Arun Mavaji Seetharam, Umashankar Raju, K Suresh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11297298221080369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in clinical settings for intravenous access. Multiple attempts of PIVC insertions leads to patient discomfort, delay in treatment, associated complications, and extensive expenditure cost. Reduced number of attempts causes patient/nursing personnel satisfaction and expenditure costs. The present study evaluated performance efficacy of BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology (investigational device) as compared to the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology (control device).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>The PIVC insertions were randomized in the ratio 1:1 using either investigational or control device and were monitored for first stick success rate, ease of insertion, and patient satisfaction. Data was analyzed using R 4.0.3 and Microsoft Excel. Chi square test was used to establish association between two categorical variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 1402 patients were analyzed for first attempt insertion success which showed 98.72% success rate in investigational device as compared to 88.87% success rate in case of the control device (<i>p</i> = 0.0004). Marginal differences were observed in ease of insertion in investigational (98.71%) and control devices (99%) signifying high satisfaction levels of nursing personnels. Positive responses were observed in investigational (98.01%) and control devices (99%) underlining satisfactory performances of overall patient experiences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study showed that BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology enhanced first attempt insertion success rate along with marginal differences in its efficacy in comparison with the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology thus enhancing patient and nursing personnel satisfaction in turn making it a better alternative to be used in hospitals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298221080369\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAVA - Journal of the Association for Vascular Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298221080369","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:外周静脉导管(PIVC)是临床上常用的静脉通路。多次尝试插入外周静脉导管会导致患者不适、治疗延迟、相关并发症和高昂的费用。减少尝试次数可提高患者/护理人员的满意度并降低成本。本研究评估了采用 Instaflash 针技术的 BD Venflon™ I(研究设备)与不采用 Instaflash 针技术的 BD Venflon™ I(对照设备)的性能功效:按照 1:1 的比例随机使用研究设备或对照设备进行 PIVC 插入,并监测首针成功率、插入难易度和患者满意度。数据使用 R 4.0.3 和 Microsoft Excel 进行分析。采用卡方检验确定两个分类变量之间的关联:共对 1402 名患者的首次插入成功率进行了分析,结果显示研究设备的成功率为 98.72%,而对照设备的成功率为 88.87%(P = 0.0004)。研究设备(98.71%)和对照设备(99%)在插入难易程度上存在微小差异,这表明护理人员的满意度很高。研究用器械(98.01%)和对照用器械(99%)均出现积极反应,表明患者的总体体验令人满意:本研究表明,采用 Instaflash 针头技术的 BD Venflon™ I 提高了首次尝试插入的成功率,但与不采用 Instaflash 针头技术的 BD Venflon™ I 相比,其疗效略有差异,从而提高了患者和护理人员的满意度,使其成为医院使用的更好选择。
A randomized controlled study to compare first stick success with Instaflash technology: The FIRSST study.
Background: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in clinical settings for intravenous access. Multiple attempts of PIVC insertions leads to patient discomfort, delay in treatment, associated complications, and extensive expenditure cost. Reduced number of attempts causes patient/nursing personnel satisfaction and expenditure costs. The present study evaluated performance efficacy of BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology (investigational device) as compared to the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology (control device).
Methodology: The PIVC insertions were randomized in the ratio 1:1 using either investigational or control device and were monitored for first stick success rate, ease of insertion, and patient satisfaction. Data was analyzed using R 4.0.3 and Microsoft Excel. Chi square test was used to establish association between two categorical variables.
Results: In total, 1402 patients were analyzed for first attempt insertion success which showed 98.72% success rate in investigational device as compared to 88.87% success rate in case of the control device (p = 0.0004). Marginal differences were observed in ease of insertion in investigational (98.71%) and control devices (99%) signifying high satisfaction levels of nursing personnels. Positive responses were observed in investigational (98.01%) and control devices (99%) underlining satisfactory performances of overall patient experiences.
Conclusion: The present study showed that BD Venflon™ I with Instaflash needle technology enhanced first attempt insertion success rate along with marginal differences in its efficacy in comparison with the BD Venflon™ without Instaflash needle technology thus enhancing patient and nursing personnel satisfaction in turn making it a better alternative to be used in hospitals.
期刊介绍:
The Association for Vascular Access (AVA) is an association of healthcare professionals founded in 1985 to promote the emerging vascular access specialty. Today, its multidisciplinary membership advances research, professional and public education to shape practice and enhance patient outcomes, and partners with the device manufacturing community to bring about evidence-based innovations in vascular access.