Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the effectiveness of a video education program delivered via smartphone for patients undergoing echocardiography. Methods: A pre-post quasi-experimental design was used. The video education program was developed through a process of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation according to the ADDIE instructional design model. A total of 34 adult outpatients aged 19 years or older were recruited for the study. They were randomly assigned into an experimental group (n=17) and a control group (n=17). Pre- and post-anxiety, knowledge level, and education satisfaction after the intervention were measured. The data were analyzed by an χ²-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0. Results: No difference were found in the state anxiety level between the two groups before and after the video education program intervention. However, the experimental group showed a significant higher knowledge level compared to the control group (Z=-3.07, p=.002) after the intervention. The education satisfaction level of the experimental group was also significantly higher (Z=-3.62, p<.001). Conclusion Based on these results, it can be concluded that the echocardiography video education program developed based on the ADDIE model provides efficient information to echocardiography patients and increases their education satisfaction. It is an effective nursing intervention that enables an indirect experience of the special examination that patients will experience by providing information reflecting environmental characteristics and the opinions of patients and can be used in clinical practice as an efficient education method employing self-learning.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate the effectiveness of a video education program delivered via smartphone for patients undergoing echocardiography. Methods: A pre-post quasi-experimental design was used. The video education program was developed through a process of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation according to the ADDIE instructional design model. A total of 34 adult outpatients aged 19 years or older were recruited for the study. They were randomly assigned into an experimental group (n=17) and a control group (n=17). Pre- and post-anxiety, knowledge level, and education satisfaction after the intervention were measured. The data were analyzed by an χ²-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0. Results: No difference were found in the state anxiety level between the two groups before and after the video education program intervention. However, the experimental group showed a significant higher knowledge level compared to the control group (Z=-3.07, p=.002) after the intervention. The education satisfaction level of the experimental group was also significantly higher (Z=-3.62, p<.001). Conclusion Based on these results, it can be concluded that the echocardiography video education program developed based on the ADDIE model provides efficient information to echocardiography patients and increases their education satisfaction. It is an effective nursing intervention that enables an indirect experience of the special examination that patients will experience by providing information reflecting environmental characteristics and the opinions of patients and can be used in clinical practice as an efficient education method employing self-learning.

Objective: To demonstrate the noninferiority of the novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence (BMI Korea Co., Ltd., thrombin cross-linked sodium hyaluronate gel matrix) compared to the established agent, Floseal Hemostatic Matrix (Baxter, thrombin-gelatin matrix) in achieving hemostasis for spinal surgeries, with secondary objectives to assess additional efficacy and safety. Methods: This clinical trial was a multicenter, randomized, subject-blinded, active-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study. Investigational drugs were administered to the first and second bleeding sites of each participant (or only to the first site if a second site was absent), evaluating hemostasis success rate within 10 minutes and the time to achieve hemostasis. Subsequent visits were conducted for safety assessments. For noninferiority test, a 97.5% one-sided confidence interval (CI) was used; the test group was deemed noninferior if the lower limit exceeded -10%. Results: This trial showed a 97.10% success rate in the test group and 96.05% in the control group for primary efficacy. The 95% CI (-4.90% to 7.44%) confirmed the test drug’s noninferiority. Time to hemostasis showed no significant difference between groups. All adverse events, adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse events were statistically similar between groups (p=1.000, p=0.243, and p=0.966, respectively). Conclusion A novel hemostatic agent, Hemofence, demonstrated an efficacy and safety profile comparable to that of Floseal.