More holes, more contrast? Comparing an 18-gauge non-fenestrated catheter with a 22-gauge fenestrated catheter for cardiac CT

Perforated intravenous catheter design is acceptable for the administration of contrast-enhanced computed tomography administration in cancer patients: Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Optimising first time success of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion and reducing intravenous (IV) complications in cancer patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is vital to ensure vascular access preservation and diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating a novel perforated PIVC compared to a standard PIVC.

METHODS

A single centre, parallel-group, pilot RCT was conducted between March and May 2020. Adult participants diagnosed with cancer were randomised to a non-perforated PIVC (standard care) or a PIVC with a novel perforated design (intervention) for the administration of IV contrast. There were two primary outcomes: (1) feasibility of an adequately powered RCT with pre-established criteria; and (2) all-cause PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: first insertion success, modes of PIVC failure, dwell time, contrast injection parameters (volume and injection rate), contrast enhancement, radiographer satisfaction and adverse events.

RESULTS

Feasibility outcomes were met, except for eligibility (⩾90%) and recruitment (⩾90%). In total, 166 participants were screened, 128 (77%) were eligible and of these 101/128 (79%) were randomised; 50 to standard care and 51 to intervention. First time insertion rate was 94% (47/50) in standard care and 90% (46/50) in intervention. The median dwell time was 37 minutes (interquartile range (IQR): 25-55) in standard care and 35 minutes (IQR: 25-60) in the intervention group. There was one PIVC failure, a contrast media extravasation, in the intervention group (1/51; 2%). The desired contrast injection rate was not achieved in 4/101 (4%) of participants; two from each group. Radiographers were satisfied with the contrast flow rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot RCT suggests perforated PIVCs provide expected flow rate, with no evidence of differences in contrast enhancement to non-perforated PIVCs. The feasibility of conducting a larger powered RCT was demonstrated.

Is a 20 gauge fenestrated intravenous catheter non-inferior to a 18 gauge standard catheter for apheresis procedures? A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Peripheral venous access has been promoted as the safest, quickest, and most easily achievable route for performing apheresis procedures by the American Society for Apheresis' Choosing Wisely campaign. The current literature regarding catheter size and selection for both draw and return access is limited. Furthermore, the Infusion Nurses Society recommends using the smallest gauge catheter possible for the prescribed therapy in order to limit vein trauma and phlebitis. Since there is a lack of evidence to guide selection of catheter size for return access during therapeutic apheresis procedures (TAPs) for patients with chronic conditions, this pilot study seeks to compare the performance of a 20-gauge fenestrated (20G) catheter to a standard 18-gauge (18G) intravenous catheter.

METHODS

This non-inferiority pilot study randomized 26 subjects during 74 TAPs to either 20G fenestrated catheter or 18G standard catheter.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences for variables associated with the efficiency of the TAPs comparing 20G to 18G catheter for inlet rate (P = .8666), return pressure (P = .9427), blood processed (P = .4318), or total procedure time (P = .3184).

CONCLUSION

The results from this pilot study suggest that 20G fenestrated catheter is non-inferior to 18G standard catheters. Additional studies with increased power are warranted to confirm these findings.

The Progress of Advanced Ultrasonography in Assessing Aortic Stiffness and the Application Discrepancy between Humans and Rodents

Aortic stiffening is a fundamental pathological alteration of atherosclerosis and other various aging-associated vascular diseases, and it is also an independent risk factor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Ultrasonography is a critical non-invasive method widely used in assessing aortic structure, function, and hemodynamics in humans, playing a crucial role in predicting the pathogenesis and adverse outcomes of vascular diseases. However, its applications in rodent models remain relatively limited, hindering the progress of the research. Here, we summarized the progress of the advanced ultrasonographic techniques applied in evaluating aortic stiffness. With multiple illustrative images, we mainly characterized various ultrasound techniques in assessing aortic stiffness based on the alterations of aortic structure, hemodynamics, and tissue motion. We also discussed the discrepancy of their applications in humans and rodents and explored the potential optimized strategies in the experimental research with animal models. This updated information would help to better understand the nature of ultrasound techniques and provide a valuable prospect for their applications in assessing aortic stiffness in basic science research, particularly with small animals.