Advice
Clinical and technical evidence
Clinical and technical evidence
A literature search was done for this briefing in accordance with the interim process and methods statement. This briefing includes the most relevant or best available published evidence relating to the clinical effectiveness of the technology. Further information about how the evidence for this briefing was selected is available on request by contacting mibs@nice.org.uk.
Published evidence
One service evaluation in 80 patients is summarised in this briefing. A further unpublished study in 2 adult volunteers was identified and no other evidence on the technology was identified.
Table 1 summarises the clinical evidence as well as its strengths and limitations.
Overall assessment of the evidence
The evidence base is very limited in quantity and quality, consisting of a service evaluation which is not peer reviewed and is missing details on the outcomes reported in particular. It showed that most patients in whom access was difficult had a successful cannulation using Airglove.
Table 1 Summary of selected studies
|
Service evaluation of the Airglove Patient Warming Device (2017) |
|
|
Study size, design and location |
80 patients in whom cannulation is difficult; observational; 1 oncology ward in England. |
|
Intervention and comparator(s) |
Intervention: Airglove warming device. No comparator. |
|
Key outcomes |
Cannulation after 1 heating was successful in 70 out of 80 attempts using Airglove. Two of the 10 patients had a further unsuccessful attempt, and 1 patient had 3 unsuccessful attempts at cannulation using Airglove. Reasons for unsuccessful cannulation included veins not being visible or palpable, or being damaged. Staff and patient satisfaction with the device (when sought) is reported as being high, and preferred to the warm water method of raising the veins. Two patients were recorded as having an adverse event; no cause was recorded; both had successful cannulation. No patients had a burning sensation and none experienced pain. |
|
Strengths and limitations |
The study includes a large sample of patients, who it is claimed were chosen randomly. The study methodology is basic. This is a hospital evaluation not published in a peer-reviewed journal and the information reported on patient and nursing feedback in particular is limited. |