Literature review on the efficacy of near-infrared device in improving peripheral venous access time and number of attempts in pediatric patients

Figures & data

Table 1. Literature search strings – key concepts and terms for literature search.

PubMed search string
Publication dates	2015–2022
Language	English
Search string	“peripheral venous access” OR pva) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“pediatric patients” OR children) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“near-infrared devices” OR nir)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“procedure time” OR “procedure duration” OR “time to access”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“number of attempts” OR “number of insertions” OR “number of sticks”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (outcome)
CINAHL plus
Publication dates	2015–2022
Language	English
Search number	Search string
1	“Near Infrared” OR “Light” OR “Vein” OR “Finder” OR “Viewer”
2	“Cannula*” OR “Catheter” OR “Peripheral” OR “Intravenous”
3	“Pedia*” OR “Children” OR “Paedia*”
4	(1) AND (2) AND (3)
Cochrane Library search string
Publication dates	2015–2022
Language	English
Search string	(“peripheral venous access” OR pva) in Title Abstract Keyword OR (“pediatric patients” OR Children) in Title Abstract Keyword AND (“near infrared devices” OR nir) in Title Abstract Keyword AND “procedure time” OR “procedure duration” OR “time to access” in Title Abstract Keyword OR “number of attempts” OR “number of insertions” OR “number of sticks” in Title Abstract Keyword - (Word variations have been searched)
Web of Science search string
Publication dates	2015–2022
Language	English
Search string	TS=((“near-infrared devices” OR “nir”) AND (“peripheral venous access”) OR (“pediatric patients” OR “Children”) AND (“procedure time” OR “procedure duration”) AND (“outcome”))

Figure 1. Study identification, screening, and inclusion, guided by PRISMA.

Table 2. Number of attempts of establishing intravenous access in enrolled subjects of included studies.

#	Author(s), year	Participants	Control group Number of attempts	NIR group Number of attempts	p-Value*
1	Rothbart et al. (2015)^28	N = 124 control group N = 114 intervention group	1 (range 1–6)	2 (range 1–6)	p < .01
2	Ramer et al. (2015)^25	N = 26 control groups N = 27 intervention group	1.23	1.22	p = .951
3	Demir and Inal (2019)^29	N = 57 control group N = 72 intervention group	2.23 ± 1.57	1.08 ± 0.28	p = .001
4	Inal and Demir (2019)^30	N = 27 control group N = 27 intervention group	2.41 ± 1.99	1.44 ± 0.85	p = .016
5	Gras et al. (2021)^26	N = 153 control group N = 158 intervention group	2.16 ± 2.15	1.79 ± 2.14	p = .15
6	Raut et al. (2022)^27	N = 122 control group N = 124 source intervention group	1 (range 1–2)	1 (range 1–3)	p = .491

*p ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant.

Table 3. Duration time of establishing intravenous access in enrolled subjects of included studies.

#	Author(s), year	Participants	Control group Procedure time	NIR group Procedure time	p-Value*
1	Rothbart et al. (2015)^28	N = 124 control group N = 114 intervention group	The median time 60 s	The median time 120 s	p < .01
2	Ramer et al. (2016)^25	N = 26 control groups N = 27 intervention group	The mean time 38.47 s	The mean time 28.47 s	P = .01
3	Conversano et al. (2018)^31	N = 32 control groups N = 53 intervention group	The median time 45.8 s	The median time 44.1 s	p = .357
4	Demir and Inal (2019)^29	N = 57 control group N = 72 intervention group	The mean time 172.65 ± 153.21 s	The mean time 37.24 ± 20.07 s	p = .001
5	Inal and Demir (2019)^30	N = 27 control group N = 27 intervention group	The median time 168.89 ± 171.54 s	The median time 44.37 ± 32.22 s	p = .001
6	Gras et al. (2021)^26	N = 153 control group N = 158 intervention group	The median time 252 s	The median time 200 s	p = .03
7	Raut et al. (2022)^27	N = 122 control group N = 124 intervention group	The median time 37.5 s	The median time 43 s	p = .307

*p ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant.

Rothbart A, Yu P, Müller-Lobeck L, et al. Peripheral intravenous cannulation with support of infrared laser vein viewing system in a pre-operation setting in pediatric patients. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:463.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Ramer L, Hunt P, Ortega E, et al. Effect of intravenous (IV) assistive device (VeinViewer) on IV access attempts, procedural time, and patient and nurse satisfaction. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2016;33(4):273–281.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Demir D, Inal S. Does the use of a vein visualization device for peripheral venous catheter placement increase success rate in pediatric patients? Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019;35:474–479.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Inal S, Demir D. Impact of peripheral venous catheter placement with vein visualization device support on success rate and pain levels in pediatric patients aged 0 to 3 years. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021;37:138–144.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gras S, Roy-Gash F, Bruneau B, et al. Reducing the time to successful intravenous cannulation in anaesthetised children with poor vein visibility using a near-infrared device: a randomised multicentre trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021;38:888–894.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raut B, Saluja S, Soni A, et al. Near infrared light source versus naked eye visualization for establishing intravenous access in neonates: a randomized control trial. J Dow Univ Health Sci. 2022;16(3):107–112.

 Google Scholar

Conversano E, Cozzi G, Pavan M, et al. Impact of near infrared light in pediatric blood drawing Centre on rate of first attempt success and time of procedure. Ital J Pediatr. 2018;44(1):60.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar