Ultrasound-assisted peripheral venous cannulation in patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia: prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Peripheral venous catheter (PVC) insertion is a common intervention, conventionally performed using visualization and palpation techniques. It has been reported that the first attempt success rate can be as low as 51%. Ultrasound guidance improves the overall success rate and the success rate of the first attempt. Therefore, we performed a randomized, prospective, clinical trial to compare two different techniques of PVC insertion in the setting of an operating theatre with a focus on the first attempt success rate. Material and methods This clinical trial allocated patients scheduled for elective surgery in general anaesthesia to undergo PVC cannulation with ultrasound guidance (Group A) or to undergo PVC cannulation without the use of ultrasound (Group B). Results A total of 613 adult patients were enrolled. The success of the first cannulation attempt was significantly higher in Group A compared to Group B (Group A: 90.6%, Group B: 84.5%, P = 0.039). The overall success rate in both groups was 100%. The time needed to perform PVC cannulation was significantly lower in Group B than Group A (Group A: 406 ± 200 s, Group B: 301 ± 215 s, P < 0.001). Conclusions We found that ultrasound-guided PVC cannulation was associated with a higher first-attempt success rate than the conventional technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".