Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:58:33.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prehospital intravenous line placement assessment in the French emergency system: a prospective study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2006

V. Minville ,
A. Pianezza ,
K. Asehnoune ,
S. Cabardis  and
N. Smail
V. Minville
Affiliation:
University of Paul Sabatier, University Hospital of Toulouse, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Toulouse, France
A. Pianezza
Affiliation:
University of Paul Sabatier, University Hospital of Toulouse, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Toulouse, France
K. Asehnoune
Affiliation:
University Hospital of Bicêtre, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
S. Cabardis
Affiliation:
University of Paul Sabatier, University Hospital of Toulouse, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Toulouse, France
N. Smail
Affiliation:
University of Paul Sabatier, University Hospital of Toulouse, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Toulouse, France
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: Out-of-hospital intravenous line placement is used daily. All available studies take place using paramedics, e.g. US-American emergency medical system. The aim of this study was to assess the intravenous line placement feasibility (time and success rate) in the French emergency medical system. Methods: A prospective observational study was performed by a French out-of-hospital team during 3-month assessing the timing and success rates for intravenous line placement. All patients were enrolled at the emergency medical service of a university hospital in France. Six hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients were included, 388 (58%) had at least one intravenous line placement in the out-of-hospital setting. Results: Success rate was 76% at the first attempt and 98% at the second attempt. The overall success rate for intravenous line placement was 99.7% (only one failure), and the average successful intravenous line time was 4.4 ± 2.8 min. Attempts ranged from 1 to 8. The time for intravenous line placement with blood sampling (58% of patients) is statistically longer than without (4.6 ± 2.5 vs. 4.3 ± 3 min, P < 0.05). Seventeen of the enrolled patients were trauma patients, and 83% were non-trauma patients. Four hundred and twenty-seven intravenous lines were placed, intravenous 10% had more than one intravenous line. Seventy-one percent of the intravenous lines were used to infuse drugs, the others were security intravenous. No significant difference was noticed between trauma and non-trauma patients in regard to the success rate and the time to place the intravenous line. Conclusion: The out-of-hospital team was skilled at intravenous line placement (success rate = 99.7%), and the time required to performed intravenous line access was short.

Keywords

INFUSIONS INTRAVENOUSEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICESEMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANSNURSESPHYSICIANSSTUDENTS MEDICAL
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 23 , Issue 7 , July 2006 , pp. 594 - 597
Copyright
© 2006 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sampalis JS, Tamim H, Denis R et al. Ineffectiveness of on-site intravenous lines: is prehospital time the culpit? J Trauma 1997; 43: 608–615.Google Scholar
Gausche M, Tadeo RE, Zane MC, Lewis RJ. Out-of-hospital intravenous access: unnecessary procedures and excessive cost. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5: 878–882.Google Scholar
Pace SA, Fuller FP, Dahlgren TJ. Paramedic decisions with placement of out-of-hospital intravenous lines. Am J Emerg Med 1999; 17: 544–547.Google Scholar
White LJ, Cooper JD, Chambers RM, Gradisek RE. Prehospital use of analgesia for suspected extremity fractures. Prehosp Emerg Care 2000; 4: 205–208.Google Scholar
McEachin CC, McDermott JT, Swor R. Few emergency medical services patients with lower-extremity fractures receive prehospital analgesia. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002; 6: 406–410.Google Scholar
Jones SE, Nesper TP, Alcouloumre E. Prehospital intravenous line placement: a prospective study. Ann Emerg Med 1989; 18: 244–246.Google Scholar
Slovis CM, Herr EW, Londorf D et al. Success rates for initiation of intravenous therapy en route by prehospital care providers. Am J Emerg Med 1990; 8: 305–307.Google Scholar
Pons PT, Moore EE, Cusick JM et al. Prehospital venous access in an urban paramedic system – a prospective on-scene analysis. J Trauma 1988; 28: 1460–1463.Google Scholar
Spaite DW, Valenzuela TD, Criss EA et al. A prospective in-field comparison of intravenous line placement by urban and non urban emergency medical services personnel. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24: 209–214.Google Scholar
Dick WF. Anglo-American vs. Franco-German emergency medical services system. Prehospital Disaster Med 2003; 18: 29–35.Google Scholar
Border JR, Lewis FR, Aprahamian C et al. Panel: prehospital trauma care-stabilize or scoop and run. J Trauma 1983; 23: 708–711.Google Scholar
McSwain GR, Garrison WB, Artz C. Evaluation of resuscitation from cardiopulmonary arrest by paramedics. Ann Emerg Med 1980; 9: 341–345.Google Scholar
Feldman R. i.v. line placement: a time study for prehospital providers. J Emerg Med 1986; 11: 43–45.Google Scholar
Thrush DN, Belsole R. Radial nerve injury after routine peripheral vein cannulation. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 160–162.Google Scholar
Mimoz O, Rayeh F, Debaene B. Catheter-related infection in intensive care. Physiopathology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Ann Fr Anesth Réanim 2001; 20: 520–536.Google Scholar
Levine R, Spaite DW, Valenzuela TD et al. Comparison of clinically significant infection rates among prehospital-versus in-hospital-initiated i.v. lines. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 25: 502–506.Google Scholar
Norwood S, Ruby A, Civetta J, Cortes V. Catheter-related infections and associated septicaemia. Chest 1991; 99: 968–975.Google Scholar
Agence nationale d'accréditation et d'évaluation en santé (Anaes). Evaluation des pratiques professionnelles dans les établissements de santé. Evaluation de la qualité de la pose et de la surveillance des cathéters veineux courts. Juin 1998.
Lapostolle F, Garrigue B, Monmarteau V et al. Peripheral venous placement: evaluation of guidelines respect in prehospital setting. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2005; 24: 31–35.Google Scholar
Ricard-Hibon A, Chollet C, Belpomme V et al. Epidemiology of adverse effects of prehospital sedation analgesia. Am J Emerg Med 2003; 21: 461–466.Google Scholar
Lopez S, Gros T, Bernard N et al. Fascia iliaca compartment block for femoral bone fractures in prehospital care. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28: 203–207.Google Scholar