Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Fewer IV catheter problems in hospitalized dogs using separation
By Simpson, Sydney E & Zersen, Kristin M·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2022·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Fewer peripheral intravenous catheter complications in hospitalized dogs when force-activated separation devices are used versus not used in a randomized controlled clinical trial.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 367 hospitalized dogs receiving IV fluids were studied to see if using a special device called a force-activated separation device (FASD) would reduce complications from their IV catheters. The dogs using the FASD had significantly fewer issues, such as dislodgement or blockage, compared to those without the device. Specifically, only about 9% of the dogs with the FASD experienced complications, while nearly 25% of the control group did. This suggests that using the FASD can help keep dogs more comfortable and reduce the need for extra care related to IV catheter problems.
People also search for: dog IV catheter complications · hospitalized dog care · force-activated separation device for dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a force-activated separation device (FASD) lowers the incidence risk of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) complications in hospitalized dogs. ANIMALS: 367 dogs that were hospitalized and received IV fluids between January 11 and March 25, 2021. PROCEDURES: A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed. Dogs hospitalized and receiving IV fluids for at least 24 hours were randomized to the FASD group or control group. PIVCs were placed following a standardized protocol. Dogs in the FASD group had the FASD device attached to their PIVC according to manufacturer instructions. For both groups, all PIVC complications were documented, and each complication was classified as extravasation, phlebitis, dislodgement, occlusion, or line breakage. RESULTS: Results from 367 dogs (FASD group = 180, control group = 187) underwent analysis. The proportion of PIVC complications was significantly (P = .004) lower for the FASD group (8.9% [16/180]) versus the control group (24.6% [46/187]). Following adjustment for differences in hospitalization time, the odds of a dog in the FASD group having a PIVC complication was approximately one-third the odds of those in the control group (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.63; P = .001). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that the use of a FASD in hospitalized dogs receiving IV fluids is warranted to lower the incidence of PIVC complications and may also limit patient discomfort, owner expense, and staff time devoted to managing PIVC complications. Further research investigating its use in cats and other species should be considered.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35943928/