This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Prunet, B. Articles by Kaiser, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Prunet, B. Articles by Kaiser, E.

---

PATIENT SAFETY

A Prospective Randomized Trial of Two Safety Peripheral Intravenous Catheters

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Military Teaching Hospital Sainte Anne, 83800 Toulon Armées, France.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Bertrand Prunet, Département d’Anesthésie, Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Sainte Anne, 83800 Toulon Armées, France. Address e-mail to prunet.bertrand{at}orange.fr.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To reduce the risk of accidental needlestick injuries, first active then passive safety devices were developed on IV catheters. However, whether these catheters are easy to implement and really protect personnel from accidental needlestick is untested.

METHODS: In this prospective randomized survey, we compared a passive safety catheter with an active safety catheter and a nonsafety classic catheter. The main objective was to evaluate the difficulty of inserting the catheters in terms of the number of insertion failures, difficulties introducing the catheter and withdrawing the needle, and the normality of the blood reflux in the delivery system. The second objective was to determine the degree of exposure to patients’ blood evaluated as the number of exposures of the staff and blood splashes of the environment, and the staff’s sense of protection.

RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine assessment cards were collected. The number of failures for the three catheter groups was similar and not statistically different. Introduction of the catheter was more difficult with the active safety catheter. Needle withdrawal was more difficult with the passive safety catheter. The blood reflux was abnormal more often with the safety catheters. The staff’s exposure was more frequent with the active safety catheter. The number of blood splashes was more common with the safety catheters.

CONCLUSIONS: Safety catheters are not superior with regard to failure rate in the catheter’s placement. Users feel better protected, but find the use of safety catheters more difficult, and their handling generates more splashing of blood into the environment. The passive safety catheter is more efficient than the active safety catheter with regard to ease of introduction of the catheter into the vein and the staff’s exposure to the patient’s blood.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Pham and S. M. Neustein A Needlestick Injury With the Introcan Safety Needle Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2009; 108(2): 669 - 670. [Full Text] [PDF]