Cited by 149Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisIntravenous Infusion Technology and SafetyVascular Procedures and Complications

Failed attempts and improvement strategies in peripheral intravenous catheterization

Sabri, Armin, Szalas, John, Holmes, Kevin S., Labib, Leah, Mussivand, Tofy·2013·Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering

Abstract

Background Access to peripheral veins is necessary for sample collection, transfusion and infusion of fluids or medications. The peripheral intravenous catheterization (PIVC) procedure is the introduction of a short catheter into a peripheral vein and can be problematic, leading to multiple failed attempts. Purpose To analyze scientific literature regarding difficulties in establishing peripheral intravenous access and improvement strategies. Method A literature search was undertaken and secondary references were retrieved from the papers obtained from the initial search. A total of 128 papers published from 1975 to 2011 were reviewed. Results The first attempt of PIVC fails in 12-26% of adults and 24-54% of children. Factors associated with the currently utilized PIVC success include: (1) patient's characteristics such as age, gender, race, weight/BMI, co-existing medical conditions and skin/vein characteristics, (2) procedure related factors such as the insertion site and catheter caliber, and (3) the operator's expertise. Strategies to improve PIVC success include: (1) bedside techniques such as venodilation, vascular visualization and vein entry indication, (2) pain management and (3) engagement of expert health care providers. Conclusion Bedside techniques have shown more improvement in PIVC success rates as opposed to pain management. Expert health care providers have shown higher performance levels with regard to the difficult cases of PIVC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/bme-120735

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sabri, A., Szalas, J., Holmes, K. S., Labib, L., & Mussivand, T.
Affiliations
Ottawa Heart Institute (CA)
Venue
Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering
Published
2013
Volume
23
Issue
1-2
Pages
93-108
ISSN
0959-2989 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1539231526
Cited by
146
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
10.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vascular Procedures and Complications
Keywords
peripheral venous catheterization, venous access, catheter insertion success rate, venodilation, vascular imaging, pain management, operator experience, difficult venous access, pediatric patients
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Body Weight, Catheterization, Peripheral, Equipment Design, Ethnicity, Humans, Sex Factors, Veins, Catheters, Administration, Intravenous

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review