A Comparative Study of Blood Sampling From Venipuncture and Short Peripheral Catheters in Pediatric Inpatients

Comparison of laboratory results between central venous access devices and venipuncture: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between two blood sampling methods via central venous access devices (CVADs) and venipuncture.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for controlled studies that compared the differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between venipuncture and CVADs from the date of database establishment to July 2022. Two researchers independently performed the literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. The standardized mean difference was used as the effect size for continuous variables and a 95% confidence interval was provided. The random-effects model was used for an I2 > 50%, otherwise the fixed-effects model was used. Sources of heterogeneity were determined by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis, as indicated.

RESULTS

This review ultimately identified 17 studies for systematic review, of which 12 were selected for meta-analysis. A total of 541 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. With the exception of the activated partial thromboplastin time, there were no significant differences in hematologic, blood chemistry, and coagulation test results between blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study provide substantial evidence that blood sampling via venipuncture and CVADs had equal reliability in most laboratory tests. Serial blood sampling via CVADs will reduce the risk of bleeding episodes and pain at the blood collection site, and safety for healthcare professionals.

Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) best practice guideline on the assessment and management of vascular access devices

INTRODUCTION

Vascular access is the most common invasive procedure performed in health care. This fundamental procedure must be performed in a safe and effective manner. Vascular access devices (VADs) are often the source of infections and other complications, yet there is a lack of clear guidance on VADs for health providers across different settings. A Best Practice Guideline (BPG) was developed by the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) to provide evidence-based recommendations on the assessment and management of VADs.

METHODS

RNAO BPGs are based on systematic reviews of the literature following the GRADE approach. Experts on the topic of vascular access were selected to form a panel. Systematic reviews were conducted on six research areas: education, vascular access specialists, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. A search for relevant research studies published in English limited to January 2013 was applied to eight databases. All studies were independently assessed for eligibility and risk of bias by two reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The GRADE approach was used to determine certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Over 65,000 articles were screened related to the six priority research questions. Of these, 876 full-text publications were examined for relevance, with 174 articles designated to inform nine recommendations in the BPG on the subject areas of: comprehensive health teaching, practical education for health providers, blood draws, daily review of peripheral VADs, visualization technologies, and pain management. In June 2021, the RNAO published the BPG on vascular access, which included the recommendations and other supporting resources.

CONCLUSION

The vascular access BPG provides high quality guidance and updated recommendations, and can serve as a primary resource for health providers assessing and managing VADs.

A comparative study on coagulation and hematologic laboratory techniques for blood sampling using the push-pull method from a CVC versus venipuncture

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the equivalence and substitutability of two blood collection methods: the push-pull method from a CVC and direct venous puncture (DVP).

METHODS

A comparative, within-subject study was conducted between September 2021 and December 2021 at a hospital in NanTong city. The sample comprised critically ill patients aged 18 and older in critical care units such as general, emergent, cardiac, respiratory, and neurological units. A total of 154 paired blood samples were collected via a CVC and direct venous puncture. This study focused on the laboratory results of the coagulation and hematologic tests. The reproducibility and reliability of the results were calculated by the mean of the coefficient of variation (CV) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman statistics were used to analyze the substitutability of the two blood collection methods.

RESULTS

The difference in the means between the two methods ranged from -1.61 to 0.09, and the coefficients of variation for both methods were similar. The ICCs of the two methods were all above 0.90, which indicated excellent reliability. In the Bland-Altman plots, all of the blood samples that obtained by the push-pull method were within clinically acceptable ranges compared to the samples obtained by direct venous puncture.

CONCLUSION

The push-pull method of collecting blood specimens from a CVC should be acceptable for coagulation and hematologic laboratory tests.

Comparison of Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Outcomes Between Blood Collection Approaches: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

A systematic literature review was performed to understand the prevalence, advantages, and disadvantages of blood collection using different approaches (direct venipuncture or vascular access devices), and interventions used to mitigate the disadvantages.

METHODS

The review included a broad range of study designs and outcomes. Database searches (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) were conducted in March 2021 and supplemented by hand searching.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one publications were included. The data indicate that blood sampling from vascular access devices is common in emergency departments, trauma centers, and intensive care units. Studies showed that hemolysis and sample contamination place a considerable economic burden on hospitals. Significant cost savings could be made through enforcing strict aseptic technique, or using the initial specimen diversion technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemolysis and sample contamination are far from inevitable in vascular access device-collected or venipuncture samples; both can be reduced through adherence to strict blood sampling protocols and utilization of the initial specimen diversion technique. Needle-free blood collection devices offer further hope for reducing hemolysis. No publication focused on the difficult venous access population; insertion success rates are likely to be lower (and the benefits of vascular access devices higher) in these patients.

Prospective Study Evaluating Whether Standard Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Can Be Used for Blood Collection Throughout Hospital Stay

Blood collection via venipuncture is the most common invasive procedure for inpatients, who experience an average of 1.6 to 2.2 blood collection episodes per day, for a total of approximately 450 million in US hospitals annually. In addition to being painful, venipuncture incurs the risk of vessel depletion, infection, and staff needlestick injury. A possible alternative is to use peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs), because PIVCs are placed in the majority of patients admitted to the hospital. Although there are anecdotal accounts of successfully using PIVCs for inpatient blood collection, the utility of this method has not been rigorously studied. The authors conducted a single-center prospective study among inpatients to evaluate blood collection success, defined as sufficient sample volume (4 mL) and no or minimal hemolysis, in PIVCs with a dwell time between 12 and 87 hours. Only 27% (28/105) of aspiration attempts were successful within this time frame. There was no difference in success rate with respect to PIVC dwell time, gauge, or location. These findings highlight the continued need for innovative, alternative solutions to meet the high demand for inpatient blood collection.