Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T00:32:15.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Blunt Cannulae as Replacements for Hypodermic Needles During Intravenous Therapy Safety and Utility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Paul Martin Kempen
Paul Martin Kempen*
Affiliation:
Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
*
Department of Anesthesiology, Comanche County Memorial Hospital, 3401 West Gore Blvd, Lawton, OK 73505
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Recently, blunt 18-gauge (ga) metal cannulae have become nationally commercially available as safety products. The ability of these blunt cannulae to prevent needlestick injury and to enable direct access of all standard latex ports and vial membranes, thus eliminating hypodermic needles entirely from the intravenous (IV) drug administration process, is assessed.

Design and Setting:

In the laboratory setting, the needlestick injury potential of small-bore blunt cannulae versus hypodermic needles was studied using blinded and randomized methods. Insertion force requirements were studied for cannulae and needles. Metal 18-ga blunt cannulae were inserted into four brands of standard Y-ports and vial stoppers to assess postpuncture integrity and force requirements.

Results:

Needlestick injury did not occur using small-bore blunt cannulae (P<.001; n=51). Metal 18-ga cannulae passed into prepierced standard Y-ports as easily as hypodermic needles and without loss of Y-port integrity. Insertion of metal 18-ga cannulae without prior port puncture was possible, but was associated with substantial coring and loss of integrity of the port seal, except for IVAC brand ports (P<.03).

Conclusions:

Metal 18-ga cannulae can be inserted through virtually all intact standard rubber vial membranes or standard Y-ports to allow safe IV access. A single prepuncture of any standard latex membrane allows economical blunt metal cannula access equally efficiently as with expensive pre-slit membranes and without loss of membrane integrity.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , March 1997 , pp. 169 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Millam, DA. IV technology helps you stay out of harms' way. Nursing 1993;23:62–63.Google Scholar
2. McCormick, RD, Meisch, MG, Ircink, FG, Maki, DG. Epidemiology of hospital sharps injuries: a 14-year prospective study in the pre-AIDS and post AIDS eras. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):301S–307S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Owens-Schwab, E, Fraser, VJ. Needleless and needle protection devices: a second look at efficacy and selection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:657–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Tait, AR, Tuttle, DB. Preventing perioperative transmission of infection: a survey of anesthesiology practice. Anesth Analg 1995;80:764–769.Google Scholar
5. Ippolito, G, De Carli, G, Puro, V, et al. Device-specific risk of needlestick injury in Italian healthcare workers. JAMA 1994;272:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gershon, RR, Karkashian, C, Felknor, S. Universal Precautions: an update. Heart Lung 1994;23:352–358.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Kempen, PM, Learned, DW. Anesthesia practice—a vector of infection? Anesthesiology 1989;71(3A):A949.Google Scholar
8. Rosenberg, AD, Bernstein, RL, Ramanathan, S, Albert, DB, Marshall, MH. Do anesthesiologists practice proper infection control precautions? Anesthesiology 1989;71:A949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Berry, AJ, Greene, ES. The risk of needlestick injuries and needlestick-transmitted diseases in the practice of anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 1992;77:1007–1021.Google Scholar
10. Savina, SR, Napolitano, B. A comparison between two intermittent IV systems without needles. Journal of Intravenous Nursing 1994;17:256–260.Google Scholar
11. Kempen, PM. Needlesafe vs needleless IV injections. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists 1994;62:308–309.Google Scholar
12. Johnson, KC, Strom, LM. Hemodynamic monitoring. In: Methods of Critical Care—The American Association of Critical Care Nurses Manual. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co; 1980:63.Google Scholar
13. Berry, AJ. The use of needles in the practice of anesthesiology and the effect of a needleless IV administration set. Anesth Analg 1993;76:1114–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Hanley, JA, Lippman-Hand, A. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA 1983;249:1743–1745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Use of approved drugs for unlabeled indications. FDA Drug Bulletin 1982;1:4–5.Google Scholar
16. FDA issues safety alert for hypodermic needles on secondary IV administration sets. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:373.Google Scholar
17. American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Occupational Health of Operating Room Personnel. Recommendations for infection control for the practice of anesthesiology. American Society of Anesthesiologists Handbook 1993. Park Ridge, IL: American Society of Anesthesiologists; 1993.Google Scholar