Objectives: The most effective technique for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous access (USGPIVA) is unknown. In the traditional short-axis technique (locate, align, puncture [LAP]), the target vessel is aligned in short axis with the center of the transducer. The needle is then directed toward the target under real-time ultrasound (US) guidance. Locate, align, mark, puncture (LAMP) requires the extra step of marking the skin at two points over the path of the vein and proceeding with direct visualization as in LAP. The difference in success between these two techniques was compared among variably experienced emergency physician and emergency nurse operators.
Methods: Subjects in an urban academic emergency department (ED) were randomized to obtain intravenous (IV) access using either LAP or LAMP after two failed blind attempts. Primary outcomes were success of the procedure and time to complete the procedure in variably experienced operators.
Results: A total of 101 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in success between LAP and LAMP, even among the least experienced operators. Of successful attempts, LAMP took longer than LAP (median 4 minutes, interquartile range [IQR] 4-10.5 vs. median 2.9 minutes, IQR 1.6-7; p = 0.004). Only the most experienced operators were associated with higher levels of success (first attempt odds ratio [OR] 6.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2 to 22). Overall success with up to two attempts was 73%. Complications included a 2.8% arterial puncture rate and 12% infiltration rate.
Conclusions: LAMP did not improve success of USGPIVA in variably experienced operators. Experience was associated with higher rates of success for USGPIVA.