Decrease in central venous catheter placement due to use of ultrasound guidance for peripheral intravenous catheters☆
Affiliations
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Correspondence
- Corresponding author.

Affiliations
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Correspondence
- Corresponding author.

Affiliations
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Affiliations
- Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Affiliations
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Affiliations
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
Article Info
To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.

Fig.
Flow diagram of outcomes of patients with DIVA requiring ultrasound-guided IV access. CL indicates central line.
Abstract
Study Objectives
Obtaining intravenous (IV) access in the emergency department (ED) can be especially challenging, and physicians often resort to placement of central venous catheters (CVCs). Use of ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters (USGPIVs) can prevent many “unnecessary” CVCs, but the true impact of USGPIVs has never been quantified. This study set out to determine the reduction in CVCs by USGPIV placement.
Methods
This was a prospective, observational study conducted in 2 urban EDs. Patients who were to undergo placement of a CVC due to inability to establish IV access by other methods were enrolled. Ultrasound-trained physicians then attempted USGPIV placement. Patients were followed up for up to 7 days to assess for CVC placement and related complications.
Results
One hundred patients were enrolled and underwent USGPIV placement. Ultrasound-guided peripheral IV catheters were initially successfully placed in all patients but failed in 12 patients (12.0%; 95 confidence interval [CI], 7.0%-19.8%) before ED disposition, resulting in 4 central lines, 7 repeated USGPIVs, and 1 patient requiring no further intervention. Through the inpatient follow-up period, another 11 patients underwent CVC placement, resulting in a total of 15 CVCs (15.0%; 95 CI, 9.3%-23.3%) placed. Of the 15 patients who did receive a CVC, 1 patient developed a catheter-related infection, resulting in a 6.7% (95 CI, 1.2%-29.8%) complication rate.
Conclusion
Ultrasound prevented the need for CVC placement in 85% of patients with difficult IV access. This suggests that USGPIVs have the potential to reduce morbidity in this patient population.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Purchase access to this article
Claim Access
If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.
Subscribe to this title
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
☆Previously presented as a poster presentation at the American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly October 2011, San Francisco, Calif.
Related Articles
Searching for related articles..
