150 Section V ■ Vascular Access

quantity of saline). As an improvisation, a stopcock

with two dead heads may be used. However, at least

3 mL of flush solution is necessary to flush all parts of

a stopcock. This increases the margin for error, with

possible fluid overload in very small premature

infants.

5. Clean plug with antiseptic, and inject 0.4 to 0.8 mL of

saline solution through plug to flush blood from needle

or cannula.

6. Clean plug with antiseptic prior to every use.

7. Refill lock with flush solution after every IV infusion.

(Flush routinely every 6 to 12 hours, depending on frequency of use.)

References

1. Wille JC, Blussae E, Vanovd Ablas A. A comparison of four filmtype dressings by their antimicrobial effect on the flora of the skin.

J Hosp Infect. 1989;14:153.

2. Vernon HJ, Lane AT, Wischerater LJ, et al. Semipermeable dressing and transepidermal water loss in premature infants. Pediatrics.

1990;86:357.

3. Maki DG, Ringer M. Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of infection with peripheral intravenous catheters. JAMA.

1987;258:3396.

4. Hoffmann KK, Western SA, Kaiser DL, et al. Bacterial colonization and phlebitis-associated risk with transparent polyurethane

film for peripheral intravenous site dressings. Am J Infect Control.

1988;16:101.

5. Holland KT, Harnby D, Peel B. A comparison of the in vivo antibacterial effects of “Op-Site,” “Tegaderm” and “Ensure” dressings.

J Hosp Infect. 1985;6:299.

Fig. 27.15. Cystogram in infant who had not urinated for more than 24 hours despite “adequate” IV

fluids. A: The bladder appears normal, but there is a “mass effect” displacing the intestines in approximate

area indicated by arrows. B: Radiographic contrast material, injected through a long catheter introduced

into the femoral vein via the great saphenous vein, has extravasated into the abdominal cavity.

6. Stevens B, Yamada J, Ohlsson A. Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures. Cochrane Database

Syst Rev. 2010;CD001069.

7. Ganderer MW. Vascular access techniques and devices in the

pediatric patient. Surg Clin North Am. 1992;72:1267.

8. Downing JW, Charles KK. Intravenous cannula fixing and

dressing—comparison between the use of transparent polyurethane dressing and conventional technique. South Afr Med J.

1987;721:191.

9. Leibovici C. Daily change of an antiseptic dressing does not prevent infusion phlebitis: a controlled trial. Am J Infect Control.

1989;17:23.

10. Lund C, Kuller J, Lane A, et al. Neonatal skin care: the scientific

basis for practice. JOGNN. 1999;28:241.

11. Stein J, George B, River G, et al. Ultrasonographically guided

peripheral intravenous cannulation in emergency department

patients with difficult intravenous access: a randomized trial. Ann

Emerg Med. 2009;54:33.

12. Doniger SJ, Ishimine P, Fox JC, et al. Randomized controlled trial

of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter placement

versus traditional techniques in difficult-access pediatric patients.

Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009;25:154.

13. Perry AM, Caviness AC, Hsu DC. Efficacy of a near-infrared light

device in pediatric intravenous cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27:5.

14. Filston HC, Johnson DG. Percutaneous venous cannulation in

neonates: a method for catheter insertion without “cut-down.”

Pediatrics. 1971;48:896.

15. Johnson RV, Donn SM. Life span of intravenous cannulas in a

neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Dis Child. 1988;142:968.

16. Duck S. Neonatal intravenous therapy. J Intravenous Nurs. 1997;20:

121.

17. Wynsma L. Negative outcomes of intravascular therapy in infants

and children. AACN Clin Issues. 1998;9:49.

18. Batton DG, Maisles JM, Appelbaum JM. Use of intravenous cannulas in preterm infants: a controlled study. Pediatrics. 1982;

70:487.

A B