Power Injection Through Ultrasound-Guided Intravenous Lines: Safety and Efficacy Under an Institutional Protocol

Publication date: January 2017
Source:The Journal of Emergency Medicine, Volume 52, Issue 1
Author(s): Michael D. Witting, Siamak Moayedi, Kathy Dunning, Lisa S. Babin, Brad M. Cogan
BackgroundAfter an index case of contrast-associated compartment syndrome, an urban hospital instituted a protocol limiting high-speed injection to intravenous (IV) lines started proximal to the forearm and testing those lines before contrast injection.ObjectiveIn this article, we estimate the safety and efficacy of high-speed injection using this protocol in patients with IV lines inserted under ultrasound guidance.MethodsIn an ambispective study, we enrolled prospective cohorts of ED patients requiring high-speed radiographic contrast media injection (≥3.5 mL/sec) into two groups: those with IV lines placed under ultrasound guidance and those with IV lines placed using traditional inspection and palpation. We also performed a retrospective review involving those groups. In addition, we reviewed hospital records for all patients with compartment syndrome between January 2010 and December 2011. We calculated 95% confidence intervals using normal approximation or exact calculation.ResultsBetween November 2013 and August 2014, the ED referred 32 patients to the Department of Radiology for computed tomography angiography involving high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines. Of these, 25 of 32 (78%) had successful injection (7 failed in the Department of Radiology) vs. 26 of 27 (96%) with catheters inserted using traditional methods (risk difference 0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.01 to 0.38]). Based on retrospective records, we estimated 79 additional cases. We found no cases of compartment syndrome during either period, for an incidence estimate of 0 per 100 cases (95% confidence interval 0–3).ConclusionA hospital policy for high-speed contrast injection through ultrasound-guided IV lines has a safe record. However, 22% of patients with ultrasound-guided IV lines were refused for CT.



http://ift.tt/2i6ZUrb