Search

Background: Midline catheter (MC) use has increased in acute-care settings, particularly for patients with difficult venous access or requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for up-to 14 days. Our aim was to assess feasibility and generate clinical data comparing MCs with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs)., Methods: A two-arm parallel group pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing MCs with PICCs, was conducted in a large tertiary hospital in Queensland between September 2020 and January 2021. The primary outcome was study feasibility, measured against rates of eligibility (>75%), consent (>90%), attrition (<5%); protocol adherence (>90%) and missing data (<5%). The primary clinical outcome was all-cause device failure., Results: In total, 25 patients were recruited. The median patient age was 59-62 years; most patients were overweight/obese, with ≥2 co-morbidities., Primary Outcomes: The eligibility and protocol adherence criteria were not met; of 159 screened patients, only 25 (16%) were eligible, and three patients did not receive their allocated intervention post-randomisation (88% adherence). All-cause failure occurred in two patients allocated to MC (20%) and one PICC (8.3%)., Conclusions: Our study found that a fully powered RCT testing MCs compared with PICCs is not currently feasible in our setting. We recommend a robust process evaluation before the introduction of MCs into clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023 Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 'cannot intubate cannot oxygenate' (CICO) emergency requires urgent front of neck airway (FONA) access to prevent death. In cases reported to the 4th National Audit Project, the most successful FONA was a surgical technique, almost all of which were performed by surgeons. Subsequently, UK guidelines adopted surgical cricothyroidotomy as the preferred emergency surgical FONA technique. Despite regular skills-based training, anaesthetists may still be unwilling to perform an emergency surgical FONA. Consultant anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons, and general surgeons were compared in a high-fidelity simulated emergency. We hypothesised that head and neck surgeons would successfully execute emergency surgical FONA faster than anaesthetists and general surgeons., Methods: We recruited 15 consultants from each specialty (total of 45) at a single tertiary care hospital in the UK. All agreed to participate in an in situ high-fidelity simulation of an 'anaesthetic emergency'. Participants were not told in advance that this would be a CICO scenario., Results: There were no significant differences in total time to successful ventilation between anaesthetists, head and neck surgeons and general surgeons (median 86 vs 98 vs 126 s, respectively, P=0.078). Anaesthetists completed the emergency surgical FONA procedure significantly faster than general surgeons (median 50 vs 86 s, P=0.018). Despite this strong performance, qualitative data suggested some anaesthetists still believed 'surgeons' best placed to perform emergency surgical FONA in a genuine CICO situation., Conclusion: Anaesthetists regularly trained in emergency surgical FONA function at levels comparable with head and neck surgeons and should feel empowered to lead this procedure in the event of a CICO emergency., (Copyright © 2019 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)