Catheterization, PeripheralPhase 2/3NCT00357799
VeinViewer for Peripheral IV Placement in Children With Difficult Intravenous (IV) Access
A Phase 2/3 study testing VeinViewer in people with Catheterization, Peripheral and Phlebotomy, run by Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation, Wisconsin at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Hypothesis: The first attempt success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access (difficult IV access [DIVA] score ≥ 4) by nurses using the VeinViewer guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement. Specific Aims: 1. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages Up to 19 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Catheterization, Peripheral, Phlebotomy
- What is being tested?
- VeinViewer
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 170 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Oct 2006to Oct 2010
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Up to 19 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Presentation to the emergency department at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin (CHW)
- 0 to 19 years of age
- Requires a peripheral IV as determined by the examining physician
- DIVA score ≥ 3
- During times when VeinViewer™ machine is available
- During hours when a VeinViewer™ trained participating nurse is on duty
Who cannot join
- Central line available
- Immunocompromised patient
- Requirement for immediate IV placement (Patient's condition would potentially be compromised if there is a time delay in IV placement.)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin Emergency Department and Trauma Center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53226
About this study
Official title: VeinViewer for Peripheral IV Placement in Children With Difficult IV Access
Hypothesis: The first attempt success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access (difficult IV access [DIVA] score ≥ 4) by nurses using the VeinViewer guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement.
Specific Aims:
Read more
- To investigate if use of the VeinViewer can improve the success of peripheral IV placement in children with difficult IV access
- To validate the DIVA score
Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial/Convenience sample
Subjects: Children (0-18) presenting to the emergency department who require an IV as determined by examining physician and with a DIVA score ≥ 3 during times when VeinViewer machine is available and a VeinViewer trained participating nurse is on duty.
Variables:
Outcome Variables: First IV attempt success rate
Predictor Variables: IV technique used, other potential modifiers (age, weight, height, skin shade, indication for IV, history of prematurity and, vein visibility/palpability after tourniquet)
Methods: Subjects who meet inclusion criteria will be randomized to either conventional IV technique or VeinViewer guided technique. The nurse will attempt the IV depending on the randomization. Success or failure on first IV attempt will be recorded. If unsuccessful, other attempts will be tried until a successful IV is placed or the physician decides to give an alternative therapy that does not need IV access.
Statistics: A chi square test will be used to compare the proportion of subjects with successful first attempt IV placement using the VeinViewer technique to that using the conventional method with 95% confidence interval. We, the researchers, will look at the median number of attempts to place an IV in each of the groups. Logistic regression will be performed to test for independent associations. Information collected during the study will also be used for validation of the DIVA score.
Risks: No extra risks are expected above that of receiving a standard IV. The standard risk of bleeding, bruising, pain, and infection will be possible regardless of technique used. The VeinViewer does not expose the patient the ionizing radiation. The use of the VeinViewer technique may increase the time need to place an IV in.
Potential Benefits: With this study, we, the researchers, hope to improve the success rate of children with difficult IV placement in the Emergency Department.
Read the detailed description
Introduction:
Attempting to get peripheral intravenous (IV) access can be one of the most frustrating and irksome tasks medical professionals encounter. Many medical therapies require the placement of an IV. In an emergency situation, it can be the lifeline that makes the difference between a good or bad outcome. Determinants of successful IV placement include the skill and expertise of the person who places the IV, the veins of the person who receives the IV, and luck.
These difficulties are often magnified in children. Children have smaller veins. Children come in different sizes and shapes. Children are often uncooperative. Not uncommonly, multiple attempts at IV placement are required before success. The more attempts that are needed to get an IV placed, the more pain and anxiety a child experiences. Getting an IV in a timely manner can alter parental perceptions of the quality of care and improve parental satisfaction. Developing methods to improve success rate of IV placement has obvious benefits.
During a previous study, we were able to demonstrate that in 25% of the patients in our pediatric emergency department who have an IV placement attempt will fail the first IV attempt. We were able to develop a scoring system (termed DIVA score) that we believe will aid in identifying those more likely to have a failed first IV attempt and so therefore may more likely benefit from our intervention (VeinViewer™). By attempting to demonstrate improved success on those with an increase likelihood of failure on first IV attempt, we believe that we will decrease the number of subjects needed to show an effect and to limit this potentially resource intensive technique to those most likely to benefit.
The VeinViewer™ is an infrared imaging system that utilizes near-infrared light and other technologies to project a real-time image of the location and orientation (up to 0.06mm) of veins onto the surface of patient's skin. The VeinViewer™ received FDA clearance in August 2004 as a class I device. The VeinViewer's Infrared Light is considered harmless. We believe a potential application for the VeinViewer™ is to improve the success rate of IV insertion in
Objectives:
- To investigate if use of the VeinViewer™ can improve the success of peripheral IV placement in children with difficult IV access (DIVA score ≥ 3).
- To validate the DIVA (difficult IV access) score
Hypothesis:
- The first stick success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access in a pediatric emergency department (DIVA score ≥ 3) by registered nurses using VeinViewer™ guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement.
- The DIVA score is a valid scoring system to identify those who are more likely to have failed first IV attempt.
Methods:
Study Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Randomization: Subjects will be randomized to either get the VeinViewer™ technique or the conventional method. Serially number sealed opaque study packets with the blocked randomization will be created.
Subjects:
Inclusion criteria:
- Presentation to the ED at the CHW
- 0 to 19 years of age
- Requires a peripheral IV as determined by the examining physician
- DIVA score ≥ 3 (a clinical scoring system that identifying difficult IV access that gives 2 points for vein not visible after tourniquet, 2 for vein not palpable after tourniquet, 1 for age 1-2yo, 3 for age < 1 yo, 3 for history of prematurity)
- During times when VeinViewer™ machine and participating nurse is available
Exclusion criteria:
- Central line available
- Immunocompromised patient
- Requirement for immediate IV placement (Patient's condition would potentially be compromised if there is a time delay in IV placement.)
Patients who present to the emergency department and whom an IV is ordered will be screened for inclusion in the study by research assistants, nursing, or investigators. A DIVA score will be determined. Those with a score ≥ 3 will be approached to take part in the study. Informed parental consent will be obtained. Patient assent will be obtained for children 7 years of age and older).
Measurements:
Predictor Variables: VeinViewer™ or conventional methods
Main Outcome Variable: Success or failure of peripheral IV placement on first attempt
Secondary Outcome Variable: Number of attempts to successful IV placement
Data to be collected (potential modifiers for successful IV placement):
- Age (Date of Birth)
- Number of IV attempts until success or quitting
- Date of visit
- Location of IV attempts
- Weight
- Reason for IV (Fluid, medication, other)
- Height
- Dermablend skin color category
- History of prematurity
- Pre-attempt analgesia used
- Vein visibility after tourniquet
- Vein palpability after tourniquet
- Technique used (VeinViewer™/Conventional technique)
Conventional method:
A tourniquet is applied. The nurse identifies a target vein visually and tactilely in one of several areas of possible IV sites (dorsum of the hand, antecubital fossa, or forearm). The area is cleaned with an alcohol pad. The nurse then inserts an 18-24 gauge IV needle/catheter and looks for a flashback. The tourniquet is released. The IV is then flushed. If the IV flushes well, then the IV is secured in the usual manner. A secured flushed IV is the definition of a successful IV placement.
VeinViewer™ technique:
A tourniquet is applied. Using the VeinViewer™ the nurse identifies a vein for cannulation. A tourniquet is applied. The nurse then attempts to insert an 18-24 gauge IV needle/catheter and looks for a flashback. The tourniquet is released. The IV is then flushed. If the IV flushes well, then the IV is secured in the usual manner. A secured flushed IV is the definition of a successful IV placement.
Subsequent Attempts:
If unsuccessful with first attempt at IV placement, an attempt at another site with the same technique (VeinViewer™ guided or conventional method) will be performed. This will be repeated until a successful IV is placed or the physician decides to give an alternative therapy that does not need IV access.
We plan to monitor the success rate for DIVA patients who are not enrolled in the study to demonstrate that they are comparable to our control group.
Planned Analysis
VeinViewer™ vs Conventional method:
The main outcome is success or failure of peripheral IV placement on first attempt (a dichotomous outcome). A Chi square test will be used to compare the proportion of subjects with successful first stick IV placement using the VeinViewer™ technique to that using the conventional method with 95% confidence intervals around the difference. Also, planned is to look at the median number of attempts to place IV with each of the different methods of IV placement. We plan to use a non-parametric test like the Wilcoxon Rank sum test. To test for independent associations between VeinViewer™ technique or conventional method for IV placement and success or failure of IV placement on first attempt, multivariate logistic regression will be performed, with potential confounding variables (patient weight, diagnosis, etc) included as co-variates in the model. We plan to use an interaction term in the model that will take in account that there may be a learning curve for the technique (nurses early in the study vs. nurses later in the study).
DIVA score validation:
The patients whose information we collected (validation cohort) in this study will be used to validate the DIVA score. We will determine first attempt success rate with conventional IV placement method at each DIVA score in both the derivation cohort (from data previously collected in the derivation study) and the validation cohort. We will use chi-square statistics to compare derivation and validation cohorts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for predicting successful IV placement on first attempt at each DIVA score will be compared between the derivation and validation cohorts. Attempts will be made to refine the score should analysis demonstrates that it is warranted.
Estimated sample size calculation: From a previous study, we demonstrated that patients with a DIVA score ≥ 3 had a more than 45% first attempt failure rate for peripheral IV placement using the conventional method. A technique that can improve success by 25% would be considered significant. Using alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.10 (Power = 0.90), and making the question two-tailed; we find an estimated sample size in each group of 85. In other words, 170 children with DIVA ≥ 3 will be needed for our study.
Risk to Subjects:
There are no extra risks expected above that of receiving a standard IV. The standard risks of IV include bleeding, bruising, pain, and infection. The use of the VeinViewer™ technique may or may not take more time to place an IV. If a delay would be detrimental to the subject's care, they will not be asked to take part in this study.
Anticipated significance of the study:
A technique that improves the first stick success rate or decreases the number of sticks required to place an IV would decrease amount of pain, discomfort, and anxiety for the patient. Getting an IV in a timely manner can alter parental perceptions of the quality of care and improve parental satisfaction. Also, this may be a time saver for nurses.
- Conditions
- Catheterization, Peripheral, Phlebotomy
- Being tested
- VeinViewer
- Keywords
- Venipuncture, Randomized Controlled Trial, Intravenous Access, Children, Emergency Department Nursing, VeinViewer, Pediatrics, Emergency Nursing
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VeinViewerDevice
Using the VeinViewer, IV attempts will be made
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| VeinViewer Arm | Active comparator | Attempts at IV placement will be made with use of the VeinViewer Machine Receives: Device: VeinViewer |
| Conventional Method | No intervention | IV attempted with conventional method |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
First attempt IV success rates
Measured: Immediately after attempt
Secondary outcomes (1)
Number of attempts required
Measured: Immediately after attempts
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Jul 2006 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2006
- Primary completionOct 2010
- Study completionOct 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Catheterization, PeripheralStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 170 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation, Wisconsin
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kenneth Yen, Medical College of Wisconsin
- Investigators
- Kenneth Yen, MD MS, Principal investigator, Medical College of WIsconsin and Children's Research InstituteAnne Riegert, RN, Principal investigator, Children Hospital of Wisconsin Health SystemsMarc H Gorelick, MD MSCE, Principal investigator, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children's Research Institute
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00357799
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CHW 06/139, GC 185
- Status last verified
- Aug 2011
- First submitted
- 26 Jul 2006
- Last updated
- 24 Aug 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Yen K, Gorelick MH. Ultrasound applications for the pediatric emergency department: a review of the current literature. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002 Jun;18(3):226-34. doi: 10.1097/00006565-200206000-00020. No abstract available.
PubMed 12066016Yen K, Riegert A, Gorelick MH. Derivation of the DIVA score: a clinical prediction rule for the identification of children with difficult intravenous access. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Mar;24(3):143-7. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181666f32.
PubMed 18347490Abel WM, Efird JT, Crane PB, Ferdinand KC, Foy CG, DeHaven MJ. Use of coaching and technology to improve blood pressure control in Black women with hypertension: Pilot randomized controlled trial study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2023 Jan;25(1):95-105. doi: 10.1111/jch.14617. Epub 2022 Dec 20.
PubMed 36537265Abel WM, Spikes T, Greer DB. A Qualitative Study: Hypertension Stigma Among Black Women. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021 Mar-Apr 01;36(2):96-103. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000759.
PubMed 33148961
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Aug 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- VeinViewer for Peripheral IV Placement in Children With Difficult IV Access
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00357799
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CHW 06/139, GC 185
- Conditions
- Catheterization, Peripheral, Phlebotomy
- Keywords
- Venipuncture, Randomized Controlled Trial, Intravenous Access, Children, Emergency Department Nursing, VeinViewer, Pediatrics, Emergency Nursing
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 170 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation, WisconsinUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- Study start
- Oct 2006
- Primary completion
- Oct 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Jul 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Hypothesis: The first attempt success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access (difficult IV access [DIVA] score ≥ 4) by nurses using the VeinViewer guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement.
Specific Aims:
- To investigate if use of the VeinViewer can improve the success of peripheral IV placement in children with difficult IV access
- To validate the DIVA score
Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial/Convenience sample
Subjects: Children (0-18) presenting to the emergency department who require an IV as determined by examining physician and with a DIVA score ≥ 3 during times when VeinViewer machine is available and a VeinViewer trained participating nurse is on duty.
Variables:
Outcome Variables: First IV attempt success rate
Predictor Variables: IV technique used, other potential modifiers (age, weight, height, skin shade, indication for IV, history of prematurity and, vein visibility/palpability after tourniquet)
Methods: Subjects who meet inclusion criteria will be randomized to either conventional IV technique or VeinViewer guided technique. The nurse will attempt the IV depending on the randomization. Success or failure on first IV attempt will be recorded. If unsuccessful, other attempts will be tried until a successful IV is placed or the physician decides to give an alternative therapy that does not need IV access.
Statistics: A chi square test will be used to compare the proportion of subjects with successful first attempt IV placement using the VeinViewer technique to that using the conventional method with 95% confidence interval. We, the researchers, will look at the median number of attempts to place an IV in each of the groups. Logistic regression will be performed to test for independent associations. Information collected during the study will also be used for validation of the DIVA score.
Risks: No extra risks are expected above that of receiving a standard IV. The standard risk of bleeding, bruising, pain, and infection will be possible regardless of technique used. The VeinViewer does not expose the patient the ionizing radiation. The use of the VeinViewer technique may increase the time need to place an IV in.
Potential Benefits: With this study, we, the researchers, hope to improve the success rate of children with difficult IV placement in the Emergency Department.
Detailed description
Introduction:
Attempting to get peripheral intravenous (IV) access can be one of the most frustrating and irksome tasks medical professionals encounter. Many medical therapies require the placement of an IV. In an emergency situation, it can be the lifeline that makes the difference between a good or bad outcome. Determinants of successful IV placement include the skill and expertise of the person who places the IV, the veins of the person who receives the IV, and luck.
These difficulties are often magnified in children. Children have smaller veins. Children come in different sizes and shapes. Children are often uncooperative. Not uncommonly, multiple attempts at IV placement are required before success. The more attempts that are needed to get an IV placed, the more pain and anxiety a child experiences. Getting an IV in a timely manner can alter parental perceptions of the quality of care and improve parental satisfaction. Developing methods to improve success rate of IV placement has obvious benefits.
During a previous study, we were able to demonstrate that in 25% of the patients in our pediatric emergency department who have an IV placement attempt will fail the first IV attempt. We were able to develop a scoring system (termed DIVA score) that we believe will aid in identifying those more likely to have a failed first IV attempt and so therefore may more likely benefit from our intervention (VeinViewer™). By attempting to demonstrate improved success on those with an increase likelihood of failure on first IV attempt, we believe that we will decrease the number of subjects needed to show an effect and to limit this potentially resource intensive technique to those most likely to benefit.
The VeinViewer™ is an infrared imaging system that utilizes near-infrared light and other technologies to project a real-time image of the location and orientation (up to 0.06mm) of veins onto the surface of patient's skin. The VeinViewer™ received FDA clearance in August 2004 as a class I device. The VeinViewer's Infrared Light is considered harmless. We believe a potential application for the VeinViewer™ is to improve the success rate of IV insertion in
Objectives:
- To investigate if use of the VeinViewer™ can improve the success of peripheral IV placement in children with difficult IV access (DIVA score ≥ 3).
- To validate the DIVA (difficult IV access) score
Hypothesis:
- The first stick success rate for peripheral IV insertion for children with difficult IV access in a pediatric emergency department (DIVA score ≥ 3) by registered nurses using VeinViewer™ guided technique is better than conventional method of IV placement.
- The DIVA score is a valid scoring system to identify those who are more likely to have failed first IV attempt.
Methods:
Study Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial.
Randomization: Subjects will be randomized to either get the VeinViewer™ technique or the conventional method. Serially number sealed opaque study packets with the blocked randomization will be created.
Subjects:
Inclusion criteria:
- Presentation to the ED at the CHW
- 0 to 19 years of age
- Requires a peripheral IV as determined by the examining physician
- DIVA score ≥ 3 (a clinical scoring system that identifying difficult IV access that gives 2 points for vein not visible after tourniquet, 2 for vein not palpable after tourniquet, 1 for age 1-2yo, 3 for age < 1 yo, 3 for history of prematurity)
- During times when VeinViewer™ machine and participating nurse is available
Exclusion criteria:
- Central line available
- Immunocompromised patient
- Requirement for immediate IV placement (Patient's condition would potentially be compromised if there is a time delay in IV placement.)
Patients who present to the emergency department and whom an IV is ordered will be screened for inclusion in the study by research assistants, nursing, or investigators. A DIVA score will be determined. Those with a score ≥ 3 will be approached to take part in the study. Informed parental consent will be obtained. Patient assent will be obtained for children 7 years of age and older).
Measurements:
Predictor Variables: VeinViewer™ or conventional methods
Main Outcome Variable: Success or failure of peripheral IV placement on first attempt
Secondary Outcome Variable: Number of attempts to successful IV placement
Data to be collected (potential modifiers for successful IV placement):
- Age (Date of Birth)
- Number of IV attempts until success or quitting
- Date of visit
- Location of IV attempts
- Weight
- Reason for IV (Fluid, medication, other)
- Height
- Dermablend skin color category
- History of prematurity
- Pre-attempt analgesia used
- Vein visibility after tourniquet
- Vein palpability after tourniquet
- Technique used (VeinViewer™/Conventional technique)
Conventional method:
A tourniquet is applied. The nurse identifies a target vein visually and tactilely in one of several areas of possible IV sites (dorsum of the hand, antecubital fossa, or forearm). The area is cleaned with an alcohol pad. The nurse then inserts an 18-24 gauge IV needle/catheter and looks for a flashback. The tourniquet is released. The IV is then flushed. If the IV flushes well, then the IV is secured in the usual manner. A secured flushed IV is the definition of a successful IV placement.
VeinViewer™ technique:
A tourniquet is applied. Using the VeinViewer™ the nurse identifies a vein for cannulation. A tourniquet is applied. The nurse then attempts to insert an 18-24 gauge IV needle/catheter and looks for a flashback. The tourniquet is released. The IV is then flushed. If the IV flushes well, then the IV is secured in the usual manner. A secured flushed IV is the definition of a successful IV placement.
Subsequent Attempts:
If unsuccessful with first attempt at IV placement, an attempt at another site with the same technique (VeinViewer™ guided or conventional method) will be performed. This will be repeated until a successful IV is placed or the physician decides to give an alternative therapy that does not need IV access.
We plan to monitor the success rate for DIVA patients who are not enrolled in the study to demonstrate that they are comparable to our control group.
Planned Analysis
VeinViewer™ vs Conventional method:
The main outcome is success or failure of peripheral IV placement on first attempt (a dichotomous outcome). A Chi square test will be used to compare the proportion of subjects with successful first stick IV placement using the VeinViewer™ technique to that using the conventional method with 95% confidence intervals around the difference. Also, planned is to look at the median number of attempts to place IV with each of the different methods of IV placement. We plan to use a non-parametric test like the Wilcoxon Rank sum test. To test for independent associations between VeinViewer™ technique or conventional method for IV placement and success or failure of IV placement on first attempt, multivariate logistic regression will be performed, with potential confounding variables (patient weight, diagnosis, etc) included as co-variates in the model. We plan to use an interaction term in the model that will take in account that there may be a learning curve for the technique (nurses early in the study vs. nurses later in the study).
DIVA score validation:
The patients whose information we collected (validation cohort) in this study will be used to validate the DIVA score. We will determine first attempt success rate with conventional IV placement method at each DIVA score in both the derivation cohort (from data previously collected in the derivation study) and the validation cohort. We will use chi-square statistics to compare derivation and validation cohorts. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves for predicting successful IV placement on first attempt at each DIVA score will be compared between the derivation and validation cohorts. Attempts will be made to refine the score should analysis demonstrates that it is warranted.
Estimated sample size calculation: From a previous study, we demonstrated that patients with a DIVA score ≥ 3 had a more than 45% first attempt failure rate for peripheral IV placement using the conventional method. A technique that can improve success by 25% would be considered significant. Using alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.10 (Power = 0.90), and making the question two-tailed; we find an estimated sample size in each group of 85. In other words, 170 children with DIVA ≥ 3 will be needed for our study.
Risk to Subjects:
There are no extra risks expected above that of receiving a standard IV. The standard risks of IV include bleeding, bruising, pain, and infection. The use of the VeinViewer™ technique may or may not take more time to place an IV. If a delay would be detrimental to the subject's care, they will not be asked to take part in this study.
Anticipated significance of the study:
A technique that improves the first stick success rate or decreases the number of sticks required to place an IV would decrease amount of pain, discomfort, and anxiety for the patient. Getting an IV in a timely manner can alter parental perceptions of the quality of care and improve parental satisfaction. Also, this may be a time saver for nurses.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| VeinViewer Arm | Active comparator | Device: VeinViewerAttempts at IV placement will be made with use of the VeinViewer Machine |
| Conventional Method | No intervention | –IV attempted with conventional method |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- Up to 19 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Presentation to the emergency department at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin (CHW)
- 0 to 19 years of age
- Requires a peripheral IV as determined by the examining physician
- DIVA score ≥ 3
- During times when VeinViewer™ machine is available
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Central line available
- Immunocompromised patient
- Requirement for immediate IV placement (Patient's condition would potentially be compromised if there is a time delay in IV placement.)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| VeinViewerUsing the VeinViewer, IV attempts will be made | Device | VeinViewer Arm |
Primary outcome
First attempt IV success rates
Time frame: Immediately after attempt
1 secondary outcome
Number of attempts required
Time frame: Immediately after attempts
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Aug 2011.
- Background: PubMed 12066016Yen K, Gorelick MH. Ultrasound applications for the pediatric emergency department: a review of the current literature. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2002 Jun;18(3):226-34. doi: 10.1097/00006565-200206000-00020. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 18347490Yen K, Riegert A, Gorelick MH. Derivation of the DIVA score: a clinical prediction rule for the identification of children with difficult intravenous access. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Mar;24(3):143-7. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3181666f32.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36537265Abel WM, Efird JT, Crane PB, Ferdinand KC, Foy CG, DeHaven MJ. Use of coaching and technology to improve blood pressure control in Black women with hypertension: Pilot randomized controlled trial study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2023 Jan;25(1):95-105. doi: 10.1111/jch.14617. Epub 2022 Dec 20.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33148961Abel WM, Spikes T, Greer DB. A Qualitative Study: Hypertension Stigma Among Black Women. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021 Mar-Apr 01;36(2):96-103. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000759.
Related trials for Catheterization, Peripheral
Enrolling by invitation
TruVascular Access - Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access Study
Peripheral Venous Catheterization, Difficult Intravenous Access
Not yet recruiting
Near-Infrared Light for Peripheral Venous Catheterization in Adults With Difficult Venous Access
Difficult Venous Access
Recruiting
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided Techniques and Infrared Illumination, Compared With the Standard Approach to Peripheral Venous Line Placement in People With Difficult Venous Access
Peripheral Venous Catheterization
Recruiting
Single Lumen Midline Catheter vs Ultrasound Guided Peripheral IV as Performed by Bedside Emergency Department Registered Nurses
Difficult Vein Access, Emergency Department Patients
Enrolling by invitation
Use of Hand Extension Rubber During Intravenous Catheter Placement
Pain, Anxiety
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Kenneth Yen, MD MS principal investigator
Medical College of WIsconsin and Children's Research Institute
Anne Riegert, RN principal investigator
Children Hospital of Wisconsin Health Systems
Marc H Gorelick, MD MSCE principal investigator
Medical College of Wisconsin and Children's Research Institute
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2/3 study testing VeinViewer in people with Catheterization, Peripheral and Phlebotomy, run by Children's Hospital and Health System Foundation, Wisconsin at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Aug 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this combined phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
First attempt IV success rates (time frame: Immediately after attempt). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00357799, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Aug 2011.