The purpose of this study is to assess the non-inferiority for safety and efficacy of using Midline in comparison with PICC for intravenous therapy that do not require a central catheter.
Vascular access devices (VADs), including peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) remain a cornerstone for the delivery of necessary intravenous therapy. PICCs are being selected for venous access more frequently today than ever before. The advantage of PICC is that it can be used for all intravenous therapy. However, PICC requires the use of fluoroscopy or other type of guidance which add to the cost and time required to insert the catheter. Midline, on the other hand, can be inserted under ultrasound guidance, takes less time to be inserted and cost less than PICC insertion. Despite lower cost and better accessibility of midline in comparison with PICC for non-vesicant intravenous therapy, there is very little evidence in the literature to suggest that one type of venous access is better than the other. The primary objective of this study is to assess the non-inferiority for safety and efficacy of using Midline in comparison with PICC for intravenous therapy that do not require a central catheter. Results of this trial will allow improving a quality of evidence for using midline instead of PICC for specified indications. If Midline are non-inferior for some indications, they would represent a more accessible and less expensive alternative than PICC insertion.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
293
PICC Insertion
Midline Insertion
Centre hospitalier de l'université de Montréal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
% of patients without VAD-related adverse event requiring medical intervention
Infections, Thrombophlebitis, Infiltration, Bleeding, Pain, Death
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
% of patients whose intended or additional I.V treatments could be completed with the VAD without VAD complications, dysfunctions or limitations (ex: need for central access or for additional peripheral or central lumens/catheters)
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
% of patients who experience VAD-related adverse events requiring medical intervention
Infections, Thrombophlebitis, Infiltration, Bleeding, Pain, Death
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
Number of VAD-related adverse events requiring medical intervention per 1000 catheter/days
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
Time to first VAD-related adverse events
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
Duration VAD intervention (Midline or PICC)
Time frame: Index procedure
Number of additional interventions to insert the VAD
Time frame: Index procedure
% of patients who required another VAD to complete the intended or additional iv treatments, either because of VAD complications, dysfunctions or limitations
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
% of patient without failed blood sampling attempts through the VAD
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval
% of patients for whom the end of treatment was the reason for VAD retrieval
Time frame: Until 1 week after VAD retrieval