Master's student National Taiwan University Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan (Republic of China)
Abstract: Background Drawing blood from a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) can be an efficient alternative to venepuncture, as it causes less traumatic entries to veins and minimizes patient discomfort, bruising and distress. There is a current research gap in comparing the effectiveness of blood sampling from PIVCs to venepuncture.
Hypothesis/Objectives To investigate if blood sampling from a PIVC can be an alternative to direct venepuncture (DV). It is hypothesized that both sampling methods would lead to clinically interchangeable results.
Animals Twenty-three client-owned dogs that required blood tests and insertions of PIVCs
Methods This was a randomized, prospective, method-comparison study. Paired DV and PIVC samples were collected simultaneously from the contralateral cephalic veins. Pre-samples (300% dead space) from PIVCs were discarded to minimize dilution effects from infusions. Hematological and biochemical analytes from different collection methods were analyzed for agreement and bias, using Bland-Altman analysis, paired sample t-test, Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and Passing-Bablok regression analysis.
Results A total of twenty-four commonly measured laboratory analytes were evaluated respectively, including complete blood counts, leukocyte differential counts, biochemistry panels and electrolytes levels. Results showed that there was no significant difference between DV and PIVC sampling methods for the majority of analytes. Occasional differences were noted, but these were not clinically significant. Seven paired samples were lipemic; however, no statistically significant difference was identified between the two methods in these samples either.
Conclusion Blood sampling from PIVCs can produce generally acceptable results and be an effective alternative to DV sampling.
