Search

Introduction: First-insertion success rates for peripheral vascular access devices (PVADs) in patients with difficult venous access (DIVA) are low, which negatively affects staff workload, patient experience, and organizational cost. There is mixed evidence regarding the impact of a peripheral vascular access device with retractable coiled tip guidewire (GW; AccuCath™, BD) on the first-insertion success rate. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of long GW-PVADs, compared with standard PVADs, reduces the risk of first-time insertion failure, in patients admitted to emergency departments (EDs). Methods and analysis: A parallel-group, two-arm, randomized controlled trial will be carried out in two Australian EDs to compare long GW-PVADs (5.8 cm length) against standard care PVADs (short or long). Patients ≥18 years of age meeting DIVA criteria will be eligible for the trial. The sample size is 203 participants for each arm. Web-based central randomization will be used to ensure allocation concealment. Neither clinicians nor patients can be blinded to treatment allocation. Primary outcome is the first-insertion success rate. Secondary outcomes include the number of insertion attempts, time to insert PVAD, all-cause failure, dwell-time, patient-reported pain, serious adverse events, complications, subsequent vascular access devices required, patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and healthcare costs. Differences between the two groups will be analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. Intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by Metro South Ethics Committee (HREC/2022/QMS/82264) and Griffith University (2022/077). The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: ACTRN12622000299707 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To test the feasibility of a study protocol that compared the efficacy of neutral‐ and negative‐pressure needleless connectors (NCs). Design: A single‐centre, parallel‐group, pilot randomised control trial. Methods: Our study compared neutral‐(intervention) and negative‐pressure (control) NCs among adult patients in an Australian hospital. The primary feasibility outcome was measured against predetermined criteria (e.g. eligibility, attrition). The primary efficacy outcome was all‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure, analysed as time‐to‐event data. Results: In total, 201 (100 control; 101 intervention) participants were enrolled between March 2020 and September 2020. All feasibility criteria were met except eligibility, which was lower (78%) than the 90% criterion. All‐cause peripheral intravenous catheter failure was significantly higher in the intervention group (39%) compared to control (19%). Conclusion: With minor modifications to participant screening for eligibility, this randomised control trial is feasible for a large multicentre randomised control trial. The neutral NC was associated with an increased risk of peripheral intravenous catheter failure. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: There are several NC designs available, often identified by their mechanism of pressure (positive, negative and neutral). However, NCs can contribute to peripheral intravenous catheter failure. This is the first randomised controlled trial to compare neutral and negative NC designs. Negative pressure NCs had lower PIVC failure compared to neutral NCs, however the results might not be generalisable to other brands or treatment settings. Further high‐quality research is needed to explore NC design. Reporting Method: Study methods and results reported in adherence to the CONSORT Statement. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite pervasive need for peripheral intravenous catheters, insertion is often difficult, and approximately two thirds fail prematurely. Midline catheters are an alternative long peripheral catheter, inserted in the upper arm, ideal for patients with difficult access. Aim: The aim of this study is to test feasibility of the protocol and compare the efficacy and safety of midline catheters to peripheral intravenous catheters. Design: A parallel‐group, pilot randomized controlled trial of adult medical/surgical hospitalized patients, from a single Australian referral hospital. Methods: Participants with difficult vascular access (≤2 palpable veins) and/or anticipated ≥5 days of peripherally compatible intravenous therapy were recruited between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were randomized to (1) peripheral intravenous catheter or (2) midline catheter. Primary feasibility outcome measured eligibility, recruitment, protocol adherence, retention and attrition. Primary clinical outcomes measured device insertion failure and post‐insertion failure. Results: In total, n = 143 participants (71 peripheral intravenous catheters and 72 midline catheters) were recruited; n = 139 were analysed. Most feasibility criteria were met. Peripheral intravenous catheters had shorter functional dwell time, with higher incidence of post‐insertion failure compared to midline catheters. Conclusion: Midline catheters appear to be superior for patients with difficult vascular access or receiving prolonged intravenous therapy; a large, multi‐centre trial to confirm findings is feasible. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? Peripheral intravenous catheters have endemically high incidence of complications.Midline catheters have been proposed as an alternative peripheral intravenous device, following recent advancements in catheter material and design.Few studies have compared safety and efficacy of contemporary midline catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters. What this paper adds: Midline catheters had a longer functional dwell time and lower incidence of post insertion‐failure, compared to peripheral intravenous catheters.Midline catheters appear safe; however, inserter skill appears to have critical influence on insertion success. The implications of this paper: This study established the feasibility and importance of a large, multicentre, randomized controlled trial to confirm findings.Future research should also focus on financial impacts, including cost‐efficiency.Policy makers should consider training specialist inserters to place midline catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Integrated peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) demonstrate clinical efficacy, however, device complexity and design differences may be a potential barrier to implementation. Aims: To assess nurse acceptability of integrated PIVC systems. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was nested within a multicentre randomised controlled trial. One hundred nurses caring for patients with integrated and non-integrated PIVCs completed a 17-item survey about key differences between devices (eg function and appearance, perceived patient comfort and skin injuries). Findings: Most nurses reported the integrated PIVC wings prevented device movement (80%), achieved patient comfort in areas of flexion (78%), and no patients developed skin injuries (100%). Nurses rated the ease of accessing and overall confidence using the integrated PIVC as significantly higher than the non-integrated design (P<0.001).Conclusion: The integrated PIVC received positive feedback from nurses and had few barriers to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)