Peripheral CatheterizationNCT07629427
Green or Pink? A Comparison of Pain and Procedural Difficulty With Intravenous Cannulas in the Emergency Department
A study testing 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula and 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula in people with Peripheral Catheterization and Veins, run by Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is one of the most frequently performed invasive procedures in both medical and nursing practice. It is essential for blood sampling, intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation, medication administration, blood product transfusion, and IV contrast-enhanced radiological… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Peripheral Catheterization, Veins, Emergency Department Patient
- What is being tested?
- 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula and 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 204 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 23 Jul 2026to 3 Aug 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 18 years of age or older
- Requiring intravenous access for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes
- Classified as low or moderate risk according to the A-DIVA (Adult Difficult Intravenous Access) score
- Provision of informed consent by the patient, a relative, or a legal guardian
Who cannot join
- Inability to effectively communicate pain intensity due to cognitive impairment, altered mental status, or visual or language difficulties
- Hemodynamic instability defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital
Istanbul
About this study
Official title: A Comparison of 18-Gauge and 20-Gauge Intravenous Cannulas in Terms of Pain and Procedural Difficulty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Emergency Department
Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is one of the most frequently performed invasive procedures in both medical and nursing practice. It is essential for blood sampling, intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation, medication administration, blood product transfusion, and IV contrast-enhanced radiological imaging. In emergency department (ED) settings, where patients may deteriorate rapidly, timely and adequate IV access is of critical importance. Larger-bore cannulas allow faster fluid and contrast delivery and are less prone to occlusion; however, Larger-bore cannulas are often perceived to cause greater pain and procedural difficulty compared to smaller-bore cannulas. This perception may lead clinicians to prefer smaller cannulas, potentially compromising care quality in patients who may unexpectedly deteriorate.
Cannula insertion inherently causes discomfort, pain, and anxiety for patients, and multiple failed attempts further amplify these effects. Patient satisfaction, an important dimension of overall care quality, is directly influenced by pain experience and the number of insertion attempts. Patients requiring two or more attempts for successful cannulation are generally classified as having difficult intravenous access (DIVA). Repeated failed attempts are associated with vascular injury, increased patient distress, delays in diagnosis and treatment, and greater consumption of healthcare resources. The A-DIVA score, developed by Van Loon et al., enables risk stratification for IV access difficulty at triage, classifying patients as low, moderate, or high risk, and facilitating proactive measures such as ultrasound guidance or involvement of experienced personnel for high-risk patients.
Read more
This single-center, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial aims to compare 18-gauge (18G) and 20-gauge (20G) PIVCs in terms of patient-reported pain intensity and nurse-reported procedural difficulty in adult ED patients with low-to-moderate A-DIVA risk. The investigators hypothesize that 18G cannulas cause similar pain and procedural difficulty compared to 20G cannulas in this patient population.
The study will be conducted at Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital Emergency Department. Ethics approval has been granted by the Marmara University Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Adult patients (18 years and older) requiring IV access for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and classified as low or moderate A-DIVA risk will be eligible. Patients with cognitive impairment, altered mental status, or hemodynamic instability (systolic BP less than 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg) will be excluded.
Eligible consenting patients will be randomized 1:1 using a block randomization method (block size of 4) to either 18G or 20G cannula insertion. Cannula assignment will be delivered to nurses in sealed envelopes. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles. Cannulation will be performed by ED nurses following standard antiseptic and securement procedures, targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned cannula will be required before allowing free choice of cannula and site.
The primary outcomes are patient-reported pain intensity and nurse-reported procedural difficulty, each assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) immediately after the first cannulation attempt and compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. Secondary outcomes include the comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. This comparison will also be performed separately according to cannulation site, operator experience, A-DIVA risk category, patient age, and patient sex.
A total of 204 patients (102 per group) will be enrolled, based on 90% power, 5% type I error, a minimum clinically important difference of 13 mm on the VAS, and a 10% dropout allowance.
- Conditions
- Peripheral Catheterization, Veins, Emergency Department Patient, Pain, Procedural Difficulty
- Being tested
- 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula, 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaDevice
Peripheral intravenous cannulation performed using an 18-gauge (18G, green) cannula inserted into the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa by an emergency department nurse following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. No local anesthetic agents will be used. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles.
20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaDevice
Peripheral intravenous cannulation performed using a 20-gauge (20G, pink) cannula inserted into the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa by an emergency department nurse following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. No local anesthetic agents will be used. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 18G Cannula Group | Active comparator | Participants in this arm will undergo peripheral intravenous cannulation using an 18-gauge (18G, green) cannula. Cannulation will be performed by emergency department nurses targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned 18G cannula will be made before allowing free choice of cannula and site. Receives: Device: 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula |
| 20G Cannula Group | Active comparator | Participants in this arm will undergo peripheral intravenous cannulation using a 20-gauge (20G, pink) cannula. Cannulation will be performed by emergency department nurses targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned 20G cannula will be made before allowing free choice of cannula and site. Receives: Device: 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain intensity
Patient-reported pain intensity assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after the first cannulation attempt, compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The VAS score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). The unit of measure is the score on the Visual Analog Scale (0-10 cm).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Procedural difficulty
Nurse-reported procedural difficulty assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after the first cannulation attempt, compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The VAS score ranges from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (worst imaginable difficulty). The unit of measure is the score on the Visual Analog Scale (0-10 cm)
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Secondary outcomes (6)
First-attempt cannulation success rate
The proportion of participants with successful cannulation achieved on the first attempt, compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants (%).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by cannulation site between groups
The first-attempt cannulation success rate at each cannulation site (dorsum of hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa), assessed by procedural documentation, will be compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants with successful first-attempt cannulation per site (%).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by operator experience between groups
The first-attempt cannulation success rate across different levels of operator experience, assessed in years of clinical experience, will be compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants with successful first-attempt cannulation per operator experience level (%).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by A-DIVA score between groups
The first-attempt cannulation success rate across A-DIVA risk categories, assessed using the Adult Difficult Intravenous Access (A-DIVA) scoring tool, will be compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants with successful first-attempt cannulation per A-DIVA risk category (%). The A-DIVA score ranges from 0 to 5, with scores of 0-1 indicating low risk, 2-3 indicating moderate risk, and 4-5 indicating high risk of difficult intravenous access.
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by patient age between groups
The first-attempt cannulation success rate across different age groups, recorded in years at the time of enrollment, will be compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants with successful first-attempt cannulation per age group (%).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by patient sex between groups
The first-attempt cannulation success rate by patient sex (male or female), recorded at the time of enrollment, will be compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The unit of measure is the percentage of participants with successful first-attempt cannulation per sex (%).
Measured: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Jun 2026
- Study start23 Jul 2026
- Primary completion30 Jul 2026
- Study completion3 Aug 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Peripheral CatheterizationStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Erhan Altunbas, Principal investigator, Marmara University Scholl Of Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07629427
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 09.2026.774
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 13 May 2026
- Last updated
- 5 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001 May;18(3):205-7. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205.
PubMed 11354213Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:193-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.013. Epub 2014 Feb 26.
PubMed 24582925Loon FHJV, Puijn LAPM, Houterman S, Bouwman ARA. Development of the A-DIVA Scale: A Clinical Predictive Scale to Identify Difficult Intravenous Access in Adult Patients Based on Clinical Observations. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Apr;95(16):e3428. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003428.
PubMed 27100437van Loon FHJ, van Hooff LWE, de Boer HD, Koopman SSHA, Buise MP, Korsten HHM, Dierick-van Daele ATM, Bouwman ARA. The Modified A-DIVA Scale as a Predictive Tool for Prospective Identification of Adult Patients at Risk of a Difficult Intravenous Access: A Multicenter Validation Study. J Clin Med. 2019 Jan 26;8(2):144. doi: 10.3390/jcm8020144.
PubMed 30691137Fields JM, Piela NE, Ku BS. Association between multiple IV attempts and perceived pain levels in the emergency department. J Vasc Access. 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):514-8. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000282. Epub 2014 Aug 29.
PubMed 25198807Mitra TP, Coulter-Nile S, Jegathees T, Luong J, Shetty A, Lai K. Spiced RCT: Success and Pain Associated with Intravenous Cannulation in the Emergency Department Randomized Controlled Trial. J Emerg Med. 2024 Feb;66(2):57-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 16.
PubMed 38278677van Loon FH, Puijn LA, van Aarle WH, Dierick-van Daele AT, Bouwman AR. Pain upon inserting a peripheral intravenous catheter: Size does not matter. J Vasc Access. 2018 May;19(3):258-265. doi: 10.1177/1129729817747531. Epub 2018 Mar 4.
PubMed 29772984Cheung E, Baerlocher MO, Asch M, Myers A. Venous access: a practical review for 2009. Can Fam Physician. 2009 May;55(5):494-6. No abstract available.
PubMed 19439704Rivera AM, Strauss KW, van Zundert AA, Mortier EP. Matching the peripheral intravenous catheter to the individual patient. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2007;58(1):19-25.
PubMed 17486920Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, Foster L, Gallagher P, Gowardman JR, Zhang L, McClymont A, Whitby M. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2012 Sep 22;380(9847):1066-74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4.
PubMed 22998716Altunbas E, Unal E, Ozogul O, Ozpolat C, Karacabey S. A Comparison of 18-Gauge and 20-Gauge Short Peripheral Catheters in Terms of Pain and Procedural Difficulty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Emergency Department. Medicina (Kaunas). 2026 Sep 10;62(9):1747. doi: 10.3390/medicina62091747.
PubMed 42796353
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparison of 18-Gauge and 20-Gauge Intravenous Cannulas in Terms of Pain and Procedural Difficulty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Emergency Department
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07629427
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 09.2026.774
- Conditions
- Peripheral Catheterization, Veins, Emergency Department Patient, Pain, Procedural Difficulty
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 204 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Marmara University Pendik Training and Research HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 23 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 3 Aug 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Jun 2026 (actual)
- 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.
Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is one of the most frequently performed invasive procedures in both medical and nursing practice. It is essential for blood sampling, intravenous (IV) fluid resuscitation, medication administration, blood product transfusion, and IV contrast-enhanced radiological imaging. In emergency department (ED) settings, where patients may deteriorate rapidly, timely and adequate IV access is of critical importance. Larger-bore cannulas allow faster fluid and contrast delivery and are less prone to occlusion; however, Larger-bore cannulas are often perceived to cause greater pain and procedural difficulty compared to smaller-bore cannulas. This perception may lead clinicians to prefer smaller cannulas, potentially compromising care quality in patients who may unexpectedly deteriorate.
Cannula insertion inherently causes discomfort, pain, and anxiety for patients, and multiple failed attempts further amplify these effects. Patient satisfaction, an important dimension of overall care quality, is directly influenced by pain experience and the number of insertion attempts. Patients requiring two or more attempts for successful cannulation are generally classified as having difficult intravenous access (DIVA). Repeated failed attempts are associated with vascular injury, increased patient distress, delays in diagnosis and treatment, and greater consumption of healthcare resources. The A-DIVA score, developed by Van Loon et al., enables risk stratification for IV access difficulty at triage, classifying patients as low, moderate, or high risk, and facilitating proactive measures such as ultrasound guidance or involvement of experienced personnel for high-risk patients.
This single-center, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial aims to compare 18-gauge (18G) and 20-gauge (20G) PIVCs in terms of patient-reported pain intensity and nurse-reported procedural difficulty in adult ED patients with low-to-moderate A-DIVA risk. The investigators hypothesize that 18G cannulas cause similar pain and procedural difficulty compared to 20G cannulas in this patient population.
The study will be conducted at Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital Emergency Department. Ethics approval has been granted by the Marmara University Faculty of Medicine Clinical Research Ethics Committee. Adult patients (18 years and older) requiring IV access for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and classified as low or moderate A-DIVA risk will be eligible. Patients with cognitive impairment, altered mental status, or hemodynamic instability (systolic BP less than 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg) will be excluded.
Eligible consenting patients will be randomized 1:1 using a block randomization method (block size of 4) to either 18G or 20G cannula insertion. Cannula assignment will be delivered to nurses in sealed envelopes. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles. Cannulation will be performed by ED nurses following standard antiseptic and securement procedures, targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned cannula will be required before allowing free choice of cannula and site.
The primary outcomes are patient-reported pain intensity and nurse-reported procedural difficulty, each assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) immediately after the first cannulation attempt and compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. Secondary outcomes include the comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. This comparison will also be performed separately according to cannulation site, operator experience, A-DIVA risk category, patient age, and patient sex.
A total of 204 patients (102 per group) will be enrolled, based on 90% power, 5% type I error, a minimum clinically important difference of 13 mm on the VAS, and a 10% dropout allowance.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 18G Cannula Group | Active comparator | Device: 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaParticipants in this arm will undergo peripheral intravenous cannulation using an 18-gauge (18G, green) cannula. Cannulation will be performed by emergency department nurses targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned 18G cannula will be made before allowing free choice of cannula and site. |
| 20G Cannula Group | Active comparator | Device: 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaParticipants in this arm will undergo peripheral intravenous cannulation using a 20-gauge (20G, pink) cannula. Cannulation will be performed by emergency department nurses targeting the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. If the first attempt fails, at least one additional attempt with the assigned 20G cannula will be made before allowing free choice of cannula and site. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 18 years of age or older
- Requiring intravenous access for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes
- Classified as low or moderate risk according to the A-DIVA (Adult Difficult Intravenous Access) score
- Provision of informed consent by the patient, a relative, or a legal guardian
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Inability to effectively communicate pain intensity due to cognitive impairment, altered mental status, or visual or language difficulties
- Hemodynamic instability defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaPeripheral intravenous cannulation performed using an 18-gauge (18G, green) cannula inserted into the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa by an emergency department nurse following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. No local anesthetic agents will be used. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles. | Device | 18G Cannula Group |
| 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannulaPeripheral intravenous cannulation performed using a 20-gauge (20G, pink) cannula inserted into the dorsum of the hand, forearm, or antecubital fossa by an emergency department nurse following standard antiseptic and securement procedures. No local anesthetic agents will be used. Patients will be blinded to cannula size using blackout goggles. | Device | 20G Cannula Group |
Primary outcome
Pain intensity
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Patient-reported pain intensity assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after the first cannulation attempt, compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The VAS score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). The unit of measure is the score on the Visual Analog Scale (0-10 cm).
Procedural difficulty
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Nurse-reported procedural difficulty assessed using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) after the first cannulation attempt, compared between the 18G and 20G cannula groups. The VAS score ranges from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (worst imaginable difficulty). The unit of measure is the score on the Visual Analog Scale (0-10 cm)
6 secondary outcomes
First-attempt cannulation success rate
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by cannulation site between groups
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by operator experience between groups
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by A-DIVA score between groups
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by patient age between groups
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
Comparison of first-attempt cannulation success rate by patient sex between groups
Time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt
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 5 Aug 2026.
- Background: PubMed 11354213Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg Med J. 2001 May;18(3):205-7. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.3.205.
- Background: PubMed 24582925Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:193-204. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.013. Epub 2014 Feb 26.
- Background: PubMed 27100437Loon FHJV, Puijn LAPM, Houterman S, Bouwman ARA. Development of the A-DIVA Scale: A Clinical Predictive Scale to Identify Difficult Intravenous Access in Adult Patients Based on Clinical Observations. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Apr;95(16):e3428. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003428.
- Background: PubMed 30691137van Loon FHJ, van Hooff LWE, de Boer HD, Koopman SSHA, Buise MP, Korsten HHM, Dierick-van Daele ATM, Bouwman ARA. The Modified A-DIVA Scale as a Predictive Tool for Prospective Identification of Adult Patients at Risk of a Difficult Intravenous Access: A Multicenter Validation Study. J Clin Med. 2019 Jan 26;8(2):144. doi: 10.3390/jcm8020144.
- Background: PubMed 25198807Fields JM, Piela NE, Ku BS. Association between multiple IV attempts and perceived pain levels in the emergency department. J Vasc Access. 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):514-8. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000282. Epub 2014 Aug 29.
- Background: PubMed 38278677Mitra TP, Coulter-Nile S, Jegathees T, Luong J, Shetty A, Lai K. Spiced RCT: Success and Pain Associated with Intravenous Cannulation in the Emergency Department Randomized Controlled Trial. J Emerg Med. 2024 Feb;66(2):57-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 16.
- Background: PubMed 29772984van Loon FH, Puijn LA, van Aarle WH, Dierick-van Daele AT, Bouwman AR. Pain upon inserting a peripheral intravenous catheter: Size does not matter. J Vasc Access. 2018 May;19(3):258-265. doi: 10.1177/1129729817747531. Epub 2018 Mar 4.
- Background: PubMed 19439704Cheung E, Baerlocher MO, Asch M, Myers A. Venous access: a practical review for 2009. Can Fam Physician. 2009 May;55(5):494-6. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17486920Rivera AM, Strauss KW, van Zundert AA, Mortier EP. Matching the peripheral intravenous catheter to the individual patient. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2007;58(1):19-25.
- Background: PubMed 22998716Rickard CM, Webster J, Wallis MC, Marsh N, McGrail MR, French V, Foster L, Gallagher P, Gowardman JR, Zhang L, McClymont A, Whitby M. Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet. 2012 Sep 22;380(9847):1066-74. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42796353Altunbas E, Unal E, Ozogul O, Ozpolat C, Karacabey S. A Comparison of 18-Gauge and 20-Gauge Short Peripheral Catheters in Terms of Pain and Procedural Difficulty: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Emergency Department. Medicina (Kaunas). 2026 Sep 10;62(9):1747. doi: 10.3390/medicina62091747.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Peripheral Catheterization
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.
Erhan Altunbas principal investigator
Marmara University Scholl Of Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing 18-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula and 20-gauge peripheral intravenous cannula in people with Peripheral Catheterization and Veins, run by Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
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 4 inclusion and 2 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 5 Aug 2026. 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 Turkey (Türkiye). 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.
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?
Pain intensity (time frame: Immediately after the first cannulation attempt). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT07629427, which also lists 11 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 5 Aug 2026.