Eugene Weinshenker

Evaluation of venous distension device: potential aid for intravenous cannulation.

A device designed to augment venous filling by applying a vacuum to the upper extremity during tourniquet application was evaluated. Ten healthy adult male volunteers with clinical normovolemia were studied for changes in forearm volume and dorsal hand vein turgor during use of an elastic tubing tourniquet, a blood pressure cuff tourniquet, and a vacuum-assisted cuff tourniquet. Use of the device for 30 seconds was not associated with petechia formation and resulted in a significant increase in venous turgor, as measured by an ophthalmologic tonometer, in comparison to the other tourniquet techniques (P less than .005). Use for 60 seconds was associated with mild to moderate subjective discomfort in all volunteers and petechiae in all nine white volunteers. All petechiae resolved in three days. Venous engorgement as reflected by volume displacement was significantly greater for the vacuum device and blood pressure cuff tourniquet combination than other techniques at 30 and 60 seconds of tourniquet application (P less than .005). Brief application of a vacuum to the arm during tourniquet use increases venous turgor and engorgement in normovolemic volunteers.

Evaluation of venous distension device: phase II: cannulation of nonemergent patients.

A device designed to augment venous filling by applying a vacuum to the arm during tourniquet application was evaluated in adult patients considered to have difficult peripheral venous access and in need of nonemergent venipuncture or intravenous cannulation. Patients taking medications that affected platelet activity or who had venipuncture attempts within 1 week in the same extremity were excluded. A total of 21 patients (age, 38.8 +/- 15 years; weight, 77.3 +/- 22.5 kg) were studied. The majority were obese (62%) and/or did not have prominent veins even when a standard tourniquet cuff was placed (71%). Use of the device was successful in 19 patients (90%), with a mean time to venipuncture after vacuum removal of 38 +/- 30 seconds. In the 2 patients in whom the device was unsuccessful, both patients were intravenous drug users and subsequently required either external jugular or central venous line placement. Seven patients had unsuccessful attempts at venipuncture or intravenous cannulation on the opposite extremity immediately before use of the device. In these 7 patients, subsequent use of the device was 100% successful (p = 0.0003, Fishers exact test, assuming all attempts using standard techniques would have been unsuccessful). When conventional tourniquets are unsuccessful for venipuncture, the use of the venous distension device may obviate the need for more invasive forms of venous access.