Skip to main content

Table 2 Study outcomes (n = 119)

From: Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a pilot randomised controlled trial

  VAS Generalist p value
n = 69 n = 50
PVC successfully inserted 69 (100) 50 (72)  
Multiple insertion attemptsa 13 (19) 16 (35)  
Number of insertion attemptsa, b 1.22 1.74  
Reason for removal:
 Treatment complete without complication 29 (42) 19 (38)  
 Treatment incomplete with complication 26 (38) 22 (44)  
 Treatment completed with complication 7 (10) 5 (10)  
 Routine re-site or theatre replacement 5 (7) 3 (6)  
 Insertion of a CVAD 2 (3) 1 (2)  
Device failed 33 (48) 27 (54) 0.506c
Positive blood count 0 (0) 2 (4)  
Complicationd:
 Phlebitis 19 (28) 10 (20)  
 Infiltration 13 (19) 9 (18)  
 Occlusion 7 (10) 9 (18)  
 Accidental removal 6 (9) 7 (14)  
 Unknown 0 (0) 1 (2)  
Device days 152 118  
Incidence rate of failuree, f 217 (154–305) 228 (156–332)  
Incidence rate ratio Reference 1.05 (0.61–1.80) 0.924g
Overall patient satisfactionh, i
 Insertion 9 (8–10) 7 (3.5–9)  
 Overall 7 (6–9) 4.5 (1.5–6)  
  1. Frequencies and column percentages shown, unless otherwise noted
  2. aSuccessfully inserted devices only
  3. bAverage shown
  4. cChi-squared test
  5. dMultiple responses allowed
  6. ePer 1000 device days
  7. fIncludes 95% confidence interval
  8. gLog-rank test
  9. hMedian (25th/75th percentiles) shown
  10. i0 = not satisfied, 10 = satisfied
  11. VAS vascular access specialist, n number of non-missing observations, PVC peripheral intravenous catheter, CVAD central venous access device
Back to article page

Trials

ISSN: 1745-6215