Evaluation of a New Safety Peripheral IV Catheter Designed ...

Evaluation of a New Safety Peripheral IV Catheter Designed to Reduce Mucocutaneous Blood Exposure?

Background: Current straight peripheral IV catheters (PIVC), including safety engineered devices do not completely protect the healthcare worker from possible exposure to bloodborne pathogens as blood may flow from the catheter hub after insertion.

Objectives: BD evaluated performance and clinical acceptability of a new peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) designed to reduce blood exposure.

MetDhiogidtasl :Pressure Not Required

A twDourpinhgaIsnesedr,tiounnobfliBnDdIeAdG,BrCandomized 80

controlled trial was conducted at a Strongly Disagree

clin70ical research center in New Jersey,

Disagree (0)

USA. In Phase 1, clinicians were asked

60

Somewhat Disagree (0)

to evaluate two devices: a PIVC with

Somewhat Agree

blo50od control technology (BD InsyteTM

Agree

AutoguardTM BC [Blood Control]

40

Strongly Agree

Shielded IV Catheter), and a traditional

no3n0-blood control PIVC (BD InsyteTM

AutoguardTM Shielded IV Catheter). In 20

Phase 2, clinicians compared two

ins1e0rtions of the PIVC with blood

control (PIVC BC); one with venous com0 pression and one without. The

PIVC BC was evaluated for superiority

to the conventional PIVC with regard

to blood exposure and for equivalence

in general performance characteristics.

Results: Seventy-eight clinicians (mean age: 41.4 years; 89.7% female) and 234 healthy volunteers (mean age: 40.2 years; 61.5% female) were enrolled. Blood leakage occurred significantly more in the traditional non-blood control PIVC group (39.1%) as compared to the PIVC BC group (2.0%) (difference: 37.1% [95% CI: 28.8%; 45.15%]). Blood leakage rates for the PIVC BC with or without use of venous compression were similar, 2.6% and 1.3% respectively (difference: 1.3% [95% CI: ? 7.8%, 4.7%]). A total of 98.7% of clinicians rated the PIVC BC as clinically acceptable compared to 89.6% with the traditional non-blood control PIVC (difference: ? 9.1; 95% CI: ? 18; ? 1.5%) and 98.7% agreed it replaced the need for venous compression during catheter insertion (95% CI: 92.8%; 100%).

Conclusion: The PIVC with blood control demonstrated reduced blood leakage during insertion and was rated no different for clinical acceptability and insertion performance compared to the traditional non-blood control PIVC. Clinicians agreed that the new design replaced the need for venous compression to control blood flow during IV catheter insertion.

Digital Pressure Not Required During Insertion of BD IAG BC

80

Strongly Disagree 70

Disagree (0)

60

Somewhat Disagree (0)

Somewhat Agree

50 Agree

40

Strongly Agree

30

20

10

0

Observed Blood Leakage Rates

200 Blood Leakage Observed No Blood Leakage Observed

150

100

50

0

IAG

IAG BC

1 Onia R, Eshun-Wilson I, Arce C, et al. Evaluation of a new safety peripheral IV catheter designed to reduce mucocutaneous blood exposure. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(7):1339-1346.

BD, BD Logo and all other trademarks are property of Becton, Dickinson and Company. ? 2011 BD ITS0115-1B (8/11)

BD Medical 9450 South State Street Sandy, Utah 84070 1.888.237.2762 IAGBC

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download