132 To compare effectiveness of infraredspectroscopic technology with conventional peripheral venous access in children: randomized control study

BackgroundAlthough considered to be a routine minor intervention, intravenous cannulation can often be difficult and potentially painful. The implications maybe more pronounced in younger children. Otica pediatric LED uses near infra-red light to enhance the visibility of veins and thus to negotiate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ paediatrics open 2021-04, Vol.5 (Suppl 1), p.A38-A38
Hauptverfasser: Ranganath, Borra, Dutt, Raj Dhar, Varma, Yogendra Singh, Gaur, Ajay
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BackgroundAlthough considered to be a routine minor intervention, intravenous cannulation can often be difficult and potentially painful. The implications maybe more pronounced in younger children. Otica pediatric LED uses near infra-red light to enhance the visibility of veins and thus to negotiate difficult venous access. In our study we hoped to explore the utility of NEAR INFRARED TECHNOLOGY in children with difficult peripheral venous access.ObjectivesTo assess the superiority of near infra-red spectroscopic technology over conventional vein viewing techniques in children with difficult peripheral venous access.MethodsFrom November 2018 to August 2020, 509 children aged 3 to 36 months satisfying the inclusion criteria for difficult cannulation (based on DIVA score) were included. Randomization was attempted by employing Otica pediatric LED (intervention group) and conventional methods (control group) every alternate fortnightly by the same set of residents. The median no. of pricks before successful cannulation per child in each group, and the proportion of first attempt success rate in each group were the primary end points.ResultsThe median no. of attempts was lower in the intervention group (1; IQR 1–2) than in the control group (2; IQR 1–3, p
ISSN:2399-9772
DOI:10.1136/bmjpo-2021-RCPCH.73