We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA Network Open 2024 Februrary 6
IMPORTANCE: Midline catheters (MCs) are widely used, but safety and efficacy compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of MCs with PICCs among adult patients with an anticipated intravenous therapy lasting from 5 to 28 days.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel, 2-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Denmark from October 2018 to February 2022 at a single academic tertiary care center. Adult inpatients and outpatients were consecutively randomized.
INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and catheter failure, including mechanical cause, phlebitis, infiltration, pain in relation to drug or fluid administration, and leaking from the puncture site. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to assess between-group failure rates over device dwell time using Poisson regression. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 304 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.5] years; 130 [42.8%] female) were included in the analysis, and 152 patients were allocated to each catheter group. The incidence of CRBSI was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99). The MC group had a higher catheter-related complication rate (20 [13.2%] vs 11 [7.2%]), and an IRR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.12-5.02; P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group. In a post hoc analysis stratified by catheter dwell time, no significant difference in complication rate (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.50-2.68; P = .73) was found between the 2 groups for catheters used less than 16 days.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this RCT with patients who received medium- to long-term intravenous therapy, the incidence of CRBSI was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs. The use of MCs resulted in a higher incidence of catheter-related complications compared with use of PICCs. This finding should be balanced in the decision of type of catheter used at the individual patient level.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04140916.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of MCs with PICCs among adult patients with an anticipated intravenous therapy lasting from 5 to 28 days.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This parallel, 2-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Denmark from October 2018 to February 2022 at a single academic tertiary care center. Adult inpatients and outpatients were consecutively randomized.
INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and catheter failure, including mechanical cause, phlebitis, infiltration, pain in relation to drug or fluid administration, and leaking from the puncture site. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to assess between-group failure rates over device dwell time using Poisson regression. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 304 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.5] years; 130 [42.8%] female) were included in the analysis, and 152 patients were allocated to each catheter group. The incidence of CRBSI was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99). The MC group had a higher catheter-related complication rate (20 [13.2%] vs 11 [7.2%]), and an IRR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.12-5.02; P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group. In a post hoc analysis stratified by catheter dwell time, no significant difference in complication rate (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.50-2.68; P = .73) was found between the 2 groups for catheters used less than 16 days.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this RCT with patients who received medium- to long-term intravenous therapy, the incidence of CRBSI was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs. The use of MCs resulted in a higher incidence of catheter-related complications compared with use of PICCs. This finding should be balanced in the decision of type of catheter used at the individual patient level.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04140916.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app