Clinical Research Directory

Effect of a Musical-Moving Toy Used During Difficult Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization on Children's Fear Level and Procedure Success

Peripheral intravenous catheterization (PIVC) is a frequently performed invasive procedure in pediatric emergency departments and is often associated with fear and distress in children. Children with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) may require multiple attempts for successful catheterization, which can increase fear, anxiety, and procedure time. Non-pharmacological distraction techniques are commonly used to reduce procedural distress in children. This randomized controlled study aims to evaluate the effect of a musical-moving toy used as a distraction method during peripheral intravenous catheterization on children's fear levels, procedure success, and procedure duration. The study will be conducted in the pediatric emergency department of Antalya City Hospital in Türkiye. Children aged 4-6 years with difficult intravenous access will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. In the intervention group, a musical-moving toy will be used during the catheterization procedure to distract the child, while the control group will receive standard care without the toy. Fear levels will be measured using the Children's Fear Scale. Procedure success will be evaluated by the number of attempts required to successfully insert the catheter, and procedure duration will be recorded using a stopwatch. The findings of this study may contribute to improving pediatric procedural care by providing an effective, low-cost, and easily applicable distraction method during intravenous catheterization.

Single Lumen Midline Catheter vs Long Peripheral Intravenous Cather for Difficult Intravenous Access in the ED

Many patients in the emergency department have veins that are difficult to get an intrevenous (IV) catheter into (called "difficult IV access"). These patients may require other methods to obtain access to a vein for administration of the necessary medications. The 2-inch long IV is most commonly used in emergency departments for people with difficulty IV access. Typically, a healthcare worker will use an ultrasound to help to see the veins underneath the skin while inserting the IV into the vein. That is, the ultrasound helps the healthcare worker visualize veins that are deeper in the arm and may not be felt through the skin. Another device that can be used is a 4-inch midline catheter. This device is less commonly used as many emergency departments do not have participants available, but it serves the same purpose as the 2-inch long IVs (that is, to give medicine into the vein and sometimes to take blood). A 4-inch midline catheter is similar to a 2-inch long IV, but has a few differences. First, the 4-inch midline catheter is even longer than the 2-inch long IV. The 4-inch midline catheter is 10-cm (about 4-inches or the size of 4 quarters side-by-side), while the 2-inch long IV is 4.78-cm (nearly 2-inches or two quarters side-by-side). Second, the 4-inch midline catheter is inserted into using a guidewire to help move the catheter in the vein (similar in concept to a train moving along a track), while the 2-inch long IV does not have this guidewire. The guidewire does not hurt and most do not know it is being used. It is just an additional step to help guide the catheter in the vein. The investigators are conducting this research study to determine which catheter is better for patients with difficult IV access: the 4-inch midline catheter or the 2-inch long IV.

Ultra-Long Peripheral Catheter Versus Accelerated Seldinger Technique Long Peripheral Catheter in Difficult IV Access Patients

The aim of this study is to perform a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes associated with the use of an ultra-long peripheral catheter using (catheter-over-the-needle technique) versus an AST-long peripheral catheter in adult patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) in a real-world clinical setting. Specifically, the study will assess potential benefits, including longer mean catheter dwell time and improved catheter usability, as well as potential harms, such as increased incidence of catheter-related thrombosis, infections, phlebitis, infiltration, and unplanned catheter removal.