CVCs Versus Midline Catheters

Overview

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if midline catheters can reduce adverse patient outcomes in adult patients requiring a single vasopressor. The main questions the study aims to answer are: * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of catheter-related bloodstream infections as compared to central venous catheters? * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of deep venous thrombosis as compared to central venous catheters? Researchers will compare midline catheters to central venous catheters to see if there is a reduction in these events. Participants will be randomized to the midline catheter group or the central venous catheter group. The catheters will be part of standard of care for vasopressor therapy. The participants will be followed for 30 days.

Within the United States, around 5 million central venous catheters (CVCs) and 150 million peripheral catheters are inserted annually. A 2015 surveillance survey across 10 U.S. states revealed that 4% of hospitalized patients had 1 or more healthcare-associated infections, with 25.6% reported as device-associated infections. Device-associated infections included catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonia. In addition to increased rates of CRBSI, CVCs are associated with upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have previously been proposed as an alternative to CVCs to avoid these complications. However, due to the increasing lumen diameter of PICCs, increased rates of catheter-related thrombosis as compared to CVCs have been reported. In contrast to PICCs where the catheter tip ends at the cavo-atrial junction near the right atrium, midline catheters are peripheral vascular devices inserted into the upper extremity veins that terminate at or below the axillary vein. As midlines terminate prior to the large vasculature of the chest, studies have demonstrated lower rates of CRBSI or DVTs as compared to the reported incidence of such complications with PICCs or CVCs. To date, there have been no large-scale randomized control trials comparing CVC and midline complication rates, including thrombosis, CRBSI, central-line associated readmission, and overall patient mortality. The authors plan to conduct a parallel, 2-group, open-label randomized control trial at a single urban academic center. A convenience sample of adult patients will be obtained over the course of 1 year. Patients with single vasopressor requirements will be subject to enrollment. Patients will be enrolled in the study by clinicians participating in their care who are involved in the placement of the catheter (midline or CVC). Informed consent will take place in the emergency department (ED) prior to the catheter placement. Clinicians will ask patients who are being treated whether they are interested in the study. Study team members will then approach interested patients to obtain consent for the research.