Clinical studies

​​​​​​​​​​Study shows a potential $475,300* in cost savings over two years using VeinViewer technology to place peripheral IVs instead of PICC lines.

Clinical poster presented at the 2015 Infusion Nurses Society Annual Convention and Industrial Exhibition.​

*based on national average of $700 per PICC

	PICC lines Placed	Improvement
2012 (VeinViewer technology not used)	1,612	21%
2013 (VeinViewer technology used)	1,272
​2014 (VeinViewer technology used)	​​1,273

VeinViewer reduced the number of medically unnecessary PICC lines placed in NICU patients by more than 30%*.

Press release: Interim study results released by Mercy Health Center in Oklahoma. Released at the Association for Vascular Access 2012 Annual Scientific Meeting.

*final study results have not yet been published

	VeinViewer Assisted Method	Traditional Method	Improvement
Rate of medically unnecessary PICC lines	1:25	1:13	>30%
Average number of PIV sticks	3.1	5.2	39%

VeinViewer improved the rate of first-stick success and improved the total time of attempts per patient.

Peer Review Journal: Near-Infrared Light Device Can Improve Intravenous Cannulation in Critically Ill Children.

PICU patients (3 mos. – 17 years)	Achieved with VeinViewer	Standard	Improvement
1st attempt stick-rate success	56%	33.3%	70.2%
Time of attempts per patient	3.10 min	8.28 min	62.5%

VeinViewer improved successful PICC placement with the most benefit seen in infants of greater GA (gestational age).

Peer Review Journal: A Randomized Trial of the VeinViewer Versus Standard Technique for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) in Neonates.

	VeinViewer Assisted Method	Traditional Method
Session 1	64%	59%
Session 2	44%	27%
Session 3	100%	80%
Overall success	86%	75%

Using VeinViewer to Increase the Identification of Peripheral Intravenous Access Targets in Pediatric Patients.

Clinical poster presented at INS 2012.

Dorsum of Hand N=120	VeinViewer	Sight	Sight + Palpation	Improvement (vs Sight + Palpation)
Total veins	8.2	4.2	5.1	61%
Optimal Catheter Segments	2.8	1.4	1.8	56%

VeinViewer showed a statistically significant increase in the percentage of first stick success rates on difficult venous access pediatric patients in a randomized controlled study.

Peer Review Journal: Efficacy of VeinViewer in pediatric peripheral intravenous access: a randomized controlled trial.

First attempt success	VeinViewer	Standard technique
Patients with DIVA (difficult intravenous access) Score > 4	58%	25%
Overall success	72%	67%

VeinViewer may decrease the time of PIV placement.

Peer Review Journal: VeinVie​wer-assisted Intravenous Catheter Placement in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Geometric mean time to place PIV, minutes	VeinViewer N=163	Standard N=160	Improvement in time
0-17 years old	2.20 min	2.42 min	10%
0-2 years old	2.02 min	2.78 min	38%

Rating of VeinViewer by nurses and doctors.

Peer Review Journal: Telemedicine, Making the Invisible Visible: Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Phlebotomy in Children.

	Better	Same	Worse
1st General effectiveness	72%	20%	8%
Visibility of peripheral veins	76%	24%	9%
	High	Medium	Low
Acceptance by families	100%	0%	0%

The use of the vein viewing device significantly improved the first attempt venipuncture success rate, decreased the number of attempts per patient, and decreased procedure time for the study population. The device was well received by patients, families and staff.

Peer Review Journal: A Biomedical Device to Improve Pediatric Vascular Access Success.

	VeinViewer	Traditional Method
First attempt success rate	80%	49%
Mean number of attempts	1.29	1.97

VeinViewer used to enhance procedures on the face.

Case Report: The Use of VeinViewer for Botulinum Toxin Injection in Facial Wrinkles.

18 pen marks were made without VeinViewer to indicate where Botox should be injected.
Did Not Overlay Vein (checked with VeinViewer)	7 (39%)
Near Vein (checked with VeinViewer)	3 (17%)
Overlay Vein (checked with VeinViewer)	8 (44%)

VeinViewer demonstrates enhancements in average number of attempts, average time needed for venous access and 1st attempt success rates. Moreover, these improvements seem to have led to an increase in patient satisfaction.

Case study: Cardinal Glennon.

	VeinViewer Assisted Method, n=40	Traditional Method, n=48
Mean Number of Attempts per IV	1.18	2.08
1st Attempt Success Rate	83%	31%
Mean Time per IV (minutes)	6.6	17.06
Patient Satisfaction Score	4.07	1.85

VeinViewer demonstrated an enhancement in the ability to successfully access veins in previously unsuccessful DVA patients and could potentially increase the efficacy of healthcare workers, increase patient satisfaction, and increase the number of blood donors.

Clinical Operations Study: Lifeblood Biological Services Summary.

Donors (previously turned away)	Achieved with VeinViewer	First-stick success rate
N=29	100%	100%

VeinViewer assisted in demonstrating a positive difference in average number of attempts, average time needed for venous access, and 1st attempt success rate. Additionally VeinViewer appears to have assisted in providing a sizeable boost in patient satisfaction scores.

Clinical Operations Study: Jefferson Memorial Hospital.

	VeinViewer Assisted Method, n=32	Traditional Method, n=32
Mean Number of Attempts per IV	1.13	2.00
1st Attempt Success Rate	88%	28%
Mean Time per IV/PICC (minutes)	4.75	15.09
Patient Satisfaction Score	4.19	1.89

Feeder veins marked for phlebectomy using naked-eye visualization and palpation versus VeinViewer only.

Peer Review Journal: Dermatologic Surgery, Vein Imaging: A New Method of Near-Infrared Imaging Where a Processed Image is Projected onto the Surface of the Skin for the Enhancement of Vein Treatment.

Total naked-eye marks	Total VeinViewer marks	Total combined marks	​Percentage of marks made with VeinViewer only
103	211	314	​67%

Learn more about how VeinViewer can positively impact you and you patients by calling a Christie expert today at 877 SEE VEIN.