Ozsarac, MuratDolek, MeralSarsilmaz, MunevverSever, MustafaSener, SerkanKiyan, SelahattinYuruktumen, AslihanYilmaz, Gulbin2023-02-212023-02-212012-01-0110.5505/1304.7361.2012.47855https://hdl.handle.net/11443/2378http://dx.doi.org/10.5505/1304.7361.2012.47855Objectives The present study was undertaken to compare the pain of peripheral IV cannulation (IVC) using a 20-G peripheral biomaterial PEU-Vialon cannula or the 20-G compound FEP-Teflon cannula widely used in clinical practice. Methods A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial was undertaken at the ED of University Hospital. Eighty-nine noncritically ill adult patients who were receiving an IV line as part of their care were enrolled. In each case cannulas were applicated to the antecubital area. Participants rated their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was patients pain score, and the secondary outcome was the provider's perception of safety and satisfaction. Results The two treatment groups did not differ in age, gender or cannulation indication (p>0.05). Mean VAS was 2.80 for PEU and 3.56 for FEP (p=0.061). Mean provider safety scores were 4.84 (4 to 5) in the PEU group and 4.00 (2 to 5) in the FEP group (p=0.0001). Mean provider satisfaction of application scores were 4.65 in the PEU group and 4.56 in the FEP group (p>0.05). Conclusions Althogh provider safety perception is high, perception of pain has not reduced when inserting PEU-Vialon cannula compared with compound of FEP.Analgesiacannulationemergency medicinepainpain measurementArticleWOS:000421050600004