We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Impact of near infrared light in pediatric blood drawing Centre on rate of first attempt success and time of procedure.
Italian Journal of Pediatrics 2018 May 26
BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood access and venipuncture are a stressful and painful experience in pediatric patients; moreover, it is estimated that more than one attempt is required to achieve the procedure in about one third of children. For this reason, we investigated if Near-infrared light technology routinely used, could give an advantage to venipuncture in a pediatric blood center setting.
METHODS: We conducted an open, pseudo-randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms, in the blood-drawing center, with enrolment of 115 patients between 0 and 18 years, in 14 consecutive working days. Fifty-three subjects were enrolled in group 1 (VeinViewer®) and 62 in group 2 (control group). We divided patients into three subgroups considering their age (< 5 years, 6-10 years, > 10 years). The primary study outcome was to assess if the use of VeinViewer® was associated with a reduction of time to perform blood sampling. The secondary outcome was to analyze VienViewer®'s impact on first attempt success rate in blood sampling.
RESULTS: No difference was found regarding the duration of blood sampling between the two groups, even after stratifying the patients into the three age subgroups. There was no difference between the two groups in the success at the first attempt in blood sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of VeinViewer® is not useful to reduce time of the procedure during venipuncture.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with number NCT03277092 , on September 8, 2017.
METHODS: We conducted an open, pseudo-randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms, in the blood-drawing center, with enrolment of 115 patients between 0 and 18 years, in 14 consecutive working days. Fifty-three subjects were enrolled in group 1 (VeinViewer®) and 62 in group 2 (control group). We divided patients into three subgroups considering their age (< 5 years, 6-10 years, > 10 years). The primary study outcome was to assess if the use of VeinViewer® was associated with a reduction of time to perform blood sampling. The secondary outcome was to analyze VienViewer®'s impact on first attempt success rate in blood sampling.
RESULTS: No difference was found regarding the duration of blood sampling between the two groups, even after stratifying the patients into the three age subgroups. There was no difference between the two groups in the success at the first attempt in blood sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of VeinViewer® is not useful to reduce time of the procedure during venipuncture.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with number NCT03277092 , on September 8, 2017.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app