Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Peripheral intravenous catheter placement in difficult-access patients is a challenge procedure in clinical setting. Extensive research has explored the effects of near-infrared devices, but there is a lack of systematic reviews regarding their outcomes.
Objectives: To evaluate the effects of near-infrared devices to facilitate peripheral intravenous access through meta-analysis.
Methods: Guidelines for the production of Cochrane Reviews were followed. Five Chinese or English databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Airiti Library, and Index of Taiwan Periodical Literature System) were searched from the earliest year available to November 2015. The search was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical triasl (CCT) and humans by using '(intravenous OR peripheral venous) AND (near-infrared OR VeinViewer OR AccuVein OR AV300 OR VascuLuminator OR VueTek Veinsite)' as key words. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used to examine the quality of included articles. Extracted data were entered and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
Results: Twelve RCTs and one CCT article (2011 Oxford Centre for Level of Evidence: Level 2-3) regarding the effects of near-infrared devices to facilitate peripheral intravenous access compared to those of traditional techniques were reviewed (Table 1). Participants included adults and children. Subgroup analysis showed that none of the three different near-infrared devices increased the first attempt success rate (AccuVein: odds ratio (OR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.84, P = 0.84; VascuLuminator: OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27, P = 0.89; VeinViewer: OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19, P = 0.65, Fig 1). No statistically significant effect on the number of attempts (MD = 0.08, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.21, P = 0.23, Fig 2), and time to intravenous access (MD = -18.93, 95% CI -57.39 to 19.54, P = 0.33, Fig 3).
Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the benefit of near-infrared devices for facilitating peripheral intravenous access, but there might be a clinical significance for the subpopulatio of difficult-access children.
Objectives: To evaluate the effects of near-infrared devices to facilitate peripheral intravenous access through meta-analysis.
Methods: Guidelines for the production of Cochrane Reviews were followed. Five Chinese or English databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, Airiti Library, and Index of Taiwan Periodical Literature System) were searched from the earliest year available to November 2015. The search was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCT) or controlled clinical triasl (CCT) and humans by using '(intravenous OR peripheral venous) AND (near-infrared OR VeinViewer OR AccuVein OR AV300 OR VascuLuminator OR VueTek Veinsite)' as key words. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used to examine the quality of included articles. Extracted data were entered and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
Results: Twelve RCTs and one CCT article (2011 Oxford Centre for Level of Evidence: Level 2-3) regarding the effects of near-infrared devices to facilitate peripheral intravenous access compared to those of traditional techniques were reviewed (Table 1). Participants included adults and children. Subgroup analysis showed that none of the three different near-infrared devices increased the first attempt success rate (AccuVein: odds ratio (OR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.84, P = 0.84; VascuLuminator: OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27, P = 0.89; VeinViewer: OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.19, P = 0.65, Fig 1). No statistically significant effect on the number of attempts (MD = 0.08, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.21, P = 0.23, Fig 2), and time to intravenous access (MD = -18.93, 95% CI -57.39 to 19.54, P = 0.33, Fig 3).
Conclusions: Current evidence does not support the benefit of near-infrared devices for facilitating peripheral intravenous access, but there might be a clinical significance for the subpopulatio of difficult-access children.