You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Repeated intravenous cannula insertion attempts in neonates
  1. Clement Trinh1,
  2. Marta Thio1,2,3,
  3. Sally Moss1,
  4. Michelle McGennisken1,
  5. Peter G Davis1,2,3
  1. 1 Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 The Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Clement Trinh, Newborn Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; clement.trinh{at}thewomens.org.au

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-322538

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) insertion is one of the most common invasive procedures performed in the neonatal unit but has a low first attempt success rate (45%–47%).1 2 Multiple insertion attempts are associated with an increased risk of infection.3

    No studies to date have examined success rates across repeated attempts by a single operator, and whether a rescue operator is more likely to successfully insert a PIVC following unsuccessful attempts by an initial operator.

    The primary outcomes of our single-centre prospective, observational study at a tertiary level neonatal unit were the probability of PIVC insertion success by a single primary operator, and the probability of PIVC insertion success by a ‘rescue’ operator following unsuccessful attempts by a primary operator.

    All neonates (n=339) who had a PIVC (n=616) inserted from June to December 2020 were eligible. Patient demographic data are detailed in table 1. Following each attempted PIVC …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CT conceived and designed the study, and contributed to the literature search, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data and writing of the first draft of the manuscript. PGD contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and revision of the manuscript draft. MT contributed to design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data and revision of the manuscript draft. SM and MG contributed to data collection and revision of the manuscript draft.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.