• Adrienne N Malik, Stephanie Thom, Travis Helberg, Bradley S Jackson, Nima Sarani, Melissa Thomas, Matthew Cook, Dana Thompson, Austin Petz, Magen Gunsolley, and Robert R Ehrman.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, 4000 Cambridge St, Kansas City, Kansas 66160, United States of America. Electronic address: amalik3@kumc.edu.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2025 Jan 1; 87: 323732-37.

IntroductionUltrasound guided IV catheter (USGIV) access occurs frequently in Emergency Departments (EDs). This task is often performed using large, expensive, cart-based ultrasound systems (CBUS) which are frequently needed for other ED ultrasound functions and can be cumbersome to use and store. Handheld ultrasounds (HHUs) may be able to meet this need, but it is unknown if they function interchangeably with CBUS for USGIV placement. We performed a prospective, randomized, noninferiority study to compare the success rate of HHUs to CBUSs for placing USGIVs.MethodsED patients 18 and older needing an USGIV were approached for enrollment and randomized to receive an USGIV placed by CBUS or HHU. USGIVs were placed by any ED physician or nurse trained in placement. A placement was considered attempted upon needle entry into the skin. An USGIV was successful if it was immediately flushable with saline. Data was collected on the success of IV placement, number of attempts, IV and provider characteristics, patient demographics, and length of time the USGIV lasted. Demographics and operator and IV characteristics were analyzed using Pearson's Chi square, Fischer's Exact test, or Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Non-inferiority was assessed using the Farrington-Manning test. Results were approached per protocol and analyzed in R.Results312 patients were enrolled. Patient and IV characteristics were similar between groups. There was no difference in the number of successful USGIVs placed in either group (p≥0.9) with 146 in the CBUS group and 145 in the HHU group. There was no difference in the first attempt success rate between groups (p = 0.8) and HHU was noninferior to CBUS for successful USGIV placement (p = 0.0001). The rate of premature USGIV failure was similar between HHU and CBUS (4.0 % and 6.7 %).ConclusionHHU was noninferior to CBUS for successful USGIV placement. There was no difference in the rate of first attempt success at placement or USGIV survival to a patient's ED disposition between groups. No significant additional training was required for ED providers of all levels to use the HHUs.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…