Objective To investigate the application of new portable vein visualizer in venous indwelling needle puncture in children.Methods A total of 432 children from January 2016 to June 2016 in pediatric department were randomly divided into observation group (n=224) and control group (n=208). Children in observation group received self-designed new portable vein visualizer in superficial venous indwelling needle puncture, while children in control group received traditional needle puncture. The one-time puncture success rate, puncture time, pain in children and family satisfaction were compared between two groups.Results The success rate of observation group (95.1%) was significantly higher than control group (73.1%) (χ2=39.881, P<0.05). The puncture time of observation group was shorter (3.400±0.615) than control group (4.850±0.873), with statistically significant difference (t=9.608,P<0.05). The family satisfaction in observation group (96.1%) was significantly higher than control group (85.2%) (χ2=7.037,P<0.05).Conclusions Application of new portable vein visualizer in superficial venous indwelling needle puncture in children improves the success rate, decreases the puncture time, reduces the pain of children and improves family satisfaction.

Background: Currently available guidelines contain conflicting recommendations on the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the guidelines and summarize the agreements and differences among recommendations. Methods: Four databases and the websites of guideline organizations were searched for guidelines regarding BP targets and thresholds for pharmacologic therapy in DM patients, and the included guidelines were appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Results: In 6,498 records identified, 20 guidelines met our inclusion criteria with 64.0% AGREE II scores (interquartile range, 48.5% to 72.0%). The scores of the European and American guidelines were superior to those of the Asian guidelines (both adjusted P<0.001). Most of the guidelines advocated systolic BP targets <130 mm Hg (12 guidelines, 60%) and diastolic BP targets <80 mm Hg (14 guidelines, 70%) in DM patients. Approximately half of the guidelines supported systolic BP thresholds >140 mm Hg (10 guidelines, 50%) and diastolic BP thresholds >90 mm Hg (nine guidelines, 45%). The tiny minority of the guidelines provided the relevant recommendations regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)/home BP monitoring (HBPM) targets and thresholds in DM patients. Conclusion The lower official BP targets (<130/80 mm Hg) in patients with DM are advocated by most of the guidelines, but they contain conflicting recommendations on the official BP thresholds. Moreover, the gaps regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ABPM/HBPM targets and thresholds need to be considered by future study.

Background: Currently available guidelines contain conflicting recommendations on the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the guidelines and summarize the agreements and differences among recommendations. Methods: Four databases and the websites of guideline organizations were searched for guidelines regarding BP targets and thresholds for pharmacologic therapy in DM patients, and the included guidelines were appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Results: In 6,498 records identified, 20 guidelines met our inclusion criteria with 64.0% AGREE II scores (interquartile range, 48.5% to 72.0%). The scores of the European and American guidelines were superior to those of the Asian guidelines (both adjusted P<0.001). Most of the guidelines advocated systolic BP targets <130 mm Hg (12 guidelines, 60%) and diastolic BP targets <80 mm Hg (14 guidelines, 70%) in DM patients. Approximately half of the guidelines supported systolic BP thresholds >140 mm Hg (10 guidelines, 50%) and diastolic BP thresholds >90 mm Hg (nine guidelines, 45%). The tiny minority of the guidelines provided the relevant recommendations regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)/home BP monitoring (HBPM) targets and thresholds in DM patients. Conclusion The lower official BP targets (<130/80 mm Hg) in patients with DM are advocated by most of the guidelines, but they contain conflicting recommendations on the official BP thresholds. Moreover, the gaps regarding the lower limit of official BP targets and the ABPM/HBPM targets and thresholds need to be considered by future study.