A response to a previously published article or letter can be submitted to the Online Correspondence section at http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com. A selection of this correspondence is published several times a year in Anaesthesia. All correspondence intended for publication in Anaesthesia should be addressed to Dr David Bogod, Editor-in-Chief, and submitted as an e-mail attachment to email@example.com. For multi-author letters, a covering letter signed by all authors must be submitted either by post, fax (44 (0) 115 823 1908) or by e-mail as a scanned document before correspondence can be published. Alternatively, letters may be submitted typewritten on one side of paper, double spaced with wide margins to Anaesthesia, 1st Floor, Maternity Unit, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. All paper submissions must include a signed covering letter, a disc or CD-ROM with a Word for Windows or .rtf version of the letter and an email address for the corresponding author. Copy should be prepared in the usual style of the Correspondence section. Authors must follow the advice about references and other matters contained in the Author Guidelines at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/ana/submiss.htm. Correspondence presented in any other style or format will be returned to the author for revision.
An evaluation of the B. Braun Vasofix® Safety intravenous cannula
Version of Record online: 11 NOV 2008
© 2008 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland
Volume 63, Issue 12, pages 1379–1381, December 2008
How to Cite
Crocker, K., Potparic, O. and Yentis, S. M. (2008), An evaluation of the B. Braun Vasofix® Safety intravenous cannula. Anaesthesia, 63: 1379–1381. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05772.x
- Issue online: 11 NOV 2008
- Version of Record online: 11 NOV 2008
Two-thirds of health-related occupational exposures to blood-borne infections are associated with hollow-bore needles, over a third occurring after the procedure but during or after disposal . Recent European legislation means that the use of safety needles and iv cannulae will soon become mandatory .
Most safety cannulae previously evaluated [3–6] have involved modifications to the usual cannulation mechanism, such that the operator’s technique requires altering. The Vasofix® Safety cannula (B. Braun Medical Ltd, Sheffield, UK) has a self-activated clip that shields the needle’s tip when retracted, allowing the cannula to be inserted in exactly the same way as for standard cannulation (Fig. 3). We conducted a randomised, controlled study comparing the Vasofix® Safety and standard Venflon™ (BD, Oxford, UK) cannulae.
After Research Ethics Committee approval and informed consent, 105 adults presenting for elective surgery were randomly assigned to undergo peripheral venous cannulation using a 22-G Vasofix® (n = 62) or Venflon™ (n = 43). Visual analogue scales were used to assess ease of cannulation, flashback of blood; sticking of the needle within the cannula; threading of the cannula into the vein; spillage of blood; and injection through the port once sited. We had no data indicating ease of cannulation to inform a power calculation, although a calculation based on VAS for pain, using data from previous studies [3–6], suggested a sample size of 150 patients per group. Data were compared using Mann–Whitney Fisher’s exact test as appropriate, a value of p < 0.05 denoting statistical significance.
The study was stopped after 105 patients had been recruited, because the manufacturer of the Vasofix introduced an improved design based on feedback from users, such that the type of cannula we had been studying was no longer the one marketed. Insertions were by 23 anaesthetists, with varying previous experience of the Vasofix. The Vasofix was more difficult to site than the Venflon, with slower flashback, more sticking of the needle within the cannula, and more difficulty threading the cannula, though there were no differences in blood spillage, ease of injection through the port, or overall pain of insertion (Fig. 4). There were no failures of the Vasofix safety mechanism and no needlestick injuries.
Since our study was not blinded we cannot exclude a bias against the Vasofix, and the participating anaesthetists were overall more experienced with the Venflon than with the Vasofix. However, even those with over 100 previous insertions were assigning lower scores to the Vasofix. Further, we only studied a single size, 22 G, and cannot extrapolate our findings to larger sizes. We stopped our study before the target number of participants was reached, but felt that proceeding with an obsolete model would provide little extra useful information. Communication with the manufacturer indicates that both the sticking and the flashback have been specifically addressed in the new version, along with improvements in the design of the needle’s tip (B. Braun, personal communication).
Our study demonstrates the risk that new devices introduced to solve a particular problem may merely exchange it for another [7, 8]. It also highlights the need for new equipment to be fully evaluated before their wholesale adoption , and the importance of manufacturers’ supporting such studies and willingness to adapt their products accordingly.
We are grateful to B. Braun for supplying the Vasofix cannulae and photographs.
- 1Health Protection Agency. Eye of the Needle. Surveillance of Significant Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Viruses in Health Care Workers. London: HPA, 2005, http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947321671 (accessed 7 June 2008).
- 2European Parliament. Protecting European Healthcare Workers from Blood Borne Infections due to Needle Stick Injuries. INI/2006/2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5303952 (accessed 7 June 2008).