Journal of Emergency Nursing
Volume 22, Issue 6 , Pages 566-569, December 1996

A comparison of hemolysis rates using intravenous catheters versus venipuncture tubes for obtaining blood samples

    RN, ADN
  • Colleen Kennedy (staff nurses)

      Affiliations

    • Emergency Department, The Medical Center, Columbus, Georgia, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationFor reprints, write Colleen Kennedy, RN, ADN, 14021 Upatoi Lane, Upatoi, GA 31829.
  • , RN, MEd, MSN
  • Sarah Angermuller (staff nurse, instructor in the nursing program)

      Affiliations

    • Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, USA
  • , RN, BSN
  • Robin King (instructor in the nursing program)

      Affiliations

    • Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, USA
  • , RN, MSN
  • Sheri Noviello (staff nurse, instructor in the nursing program)

      Affiliations

    • Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, USA
  • , RN, ADN
  • Joann Walker (staff nurses)

      Affiliations

    • Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, USA
  • , RN, MSN
  • Joanie Warden (staff nurse, instructor in the nursing program)

      Affiliations

    • Emergency Department, The Medical Center, Columbus, Georgia, USA
  • , RN, MSN
  • Susan Vang (staff nurse, instructor in the nursing program)

      Affiliations

    • Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, USA

Objective 

The primary purpose of this study was to compare the rate of hemolysis in blood samples obtained by an IV catheter versus the rate in samples obtained by venipuncture (Vacutainer tubes and needles; Becton Dickinson Vacutainer Systems, Franklin Lakes, N.J.). Subsequently, variance in IV catheter diameter was reviewed to determine its influence on hemolysis rate of IV catheter aspirate.

Design

A randomized, prospective study was used to evaluate hemolysis differences between the two blood sampling methods. A descriptive, retrospective review of study data was used to evaluate the importance of the variable IV catheter diameter.

Methods

The study group consisted of patients who came to the emergency department and required both an IV infusion and blood sampling for determination of electrolyte levels and complete blood cell count. Pediatric patients (younger than 16 years) were excluded. The ED patients who qualified for the study were randomly assigned to either group A or B. The blood samples for patients in the A group were obtained through the IV catheter at the time of insertion. The IV catheters ranged in size from 24 gauge to 14 gauge. Patients in the B group also had insertion of an IV line, but their blood samples were obtained by Vacutainer venipuncture at a separate site. The Vacutainer needle was standardized at 21 gauge. All blood samples were collected by one of seven experienced ED nurses. The nurse who collected the blood sample for any study patient was responsible for result follow-up.

Results

A total of 165 patients participated in the study; 87 patients were assigned to the A (IV) group, and 78 patients participated in the B (venipuncture) group. In group A a total of 12 of 87 (13.7%) blood samples hemolyzed. Hemolysis occurred in 3 of 78 (3.8%) of group B samples. These findings were statistically significant (p<0.05). When we examined the variable IV catheter diameter, we noted a lower incidence of hemolysis with larger catheter diameters: 24 gauge (100%), 22 gauge (25%), 20 gauge (15%), 18 gauge (10%), 16 gauge (0%), 14 gauge (0%). This finding was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Hemolysis of blood samples obtained by an IV catheter was significantly higher than when blood was obtained through Vacutainer venipuncture. There is an inverse correlation between IV catheter diameter and the rate of hemolysis.

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 14.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0099-1767(96)80213-3

Journal of Emergency Nursing
Volume 22, Issue 6 , Pages 566-569, December 1996