Search

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are the most commonly used vascular access device in hospitalised patients. Yet PIVCs may be complicated by local or systemic infections leading to increased healthcare costs. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-impregnated dressings may help reduce PIVC-related infectious complications but have not yet been evaluated. We hypothesise an impregnated CHG transparent dressing, in comparison to standard polyurethane dressing, will be safe, effective and cost-effective in protecting against PIVC-related infectious complications and phlebitis., Methods and Analysis: The ProP trial is a multicentre, superiority, randomised clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot, conducted across three centres in Australia and France. Patients (adults and children aged ≥6 years) requiring one PIVC for ≥48 hours are eligible. We will exclude patients with emergent PIVCs, known CHG allergy, skin injury at site of insertion or previous trial enrolment. Patients will be randomised to 3M Tegaderm Antimicrobial IV Advanced Securement dressing or standard care group. For the internal pilot, 300 patients will be enrolled to test protocol feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, missing data and satisfaction of participants and staff), primary endpoint for internal pilot, assessed by independent data safety monitoring committee. Clinical outcomes will not be reviewed. Following feasibility assessment, the remaining 2624 (1312 per trial arm) patients will be enrolled following the same methods. The primary endpoint is a composite of catheter-related infectious complications and phlebitis. Recruitment began on 3 May 2023., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol was approved by Ouest I ethic committee in France and by The Queensland Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia. The findings will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT05741866., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CMR’s employer (The University of Queensland or Griffith University) has received unrestricted research grants on her behalf from BD, Cardinal Health, Eloquest and consultancy payments from 3M, BD, BBraun, and ITL Biomedical. AU’s employer (The University of Queensland or Griffith University) has received unrestricted research grants or consultancies on her behalf from BD, 3M, Sterile Care and Medline. NMM— Griffith University and The University of Queensland have received on her behalf investigator-initiated research grants or consultancies from Cardinal Health, 3M, Eloquest, Medline and Becton Dickinson. AC has received unrestricted investigator-initiated research grants, paid to her employer (Griffith University), from Cardinal Health, 3 M and Eloquest. TMK’s employer (The University of Queensland or Griffith University) has received unrestricted research grants on her behalf from BD, and consultancy payments from 3M, BD, BBraun, Medical Specialties Australia, and Smiths Medical. OM, BD and JG received funding for congress attendance, and research funding from Becton Dickinson and 3M. JB’s employer (Griffith University) has received unrestricted research grants on his behalf from BD and Navi Technologies, and consultancy payments from 3M, and BD. COB has no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: When clinicians need to administer a vasopressor infusion, they are faced with the choice of administration via either peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) or central venous catheter (CVC). Vasopressor infusions have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVC) rather than Peripheral Intra Venous Catheters (PIVC), primarily due to concerns of extravasation and resultant tissue injury. This practice is not guided by contemporary randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Observational data suggests safety of vasopressor infusion via PIVC. To address this evidence gap, we have designed the "Vasopressors Infused via Peripheral or Central Access" (VIPCA) RCT., Methods: The VIPCA trial is a single-centre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT. Eligible critically ill patients requiring a vasopressor infusion will be identified by emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) staff and randomised to receive vasopressor infusion via either PIVC or CVC. Primary outcome is feasibility, a composite of recruitment rate, proportion of eligible patients randomised, protocol fidelity, retention and missing data. Primary clinical outcome is days alive and out of hospital up to day-30. Secondary outcomes will include safety and other clinical outcomes, and process and cost measures. Specific aspects of safety related to vasopressor infusions such as extravasation, leakage, device failure, tissue injury and infection will be assessed., Discussion: VIPCA is a feasibility RCT whose outcomes will inform the feasibility and design of a multicentre Phase-3 trial comparing routes of vasopressor delivery. The exploratory economic analysis will provide input data for the full health economic analysis which will accompany any future Phase-3 RCT., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Watts et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) facilitate essential treatment. Failure of these essential devices is frequent and new securement strategies may reduce failure and improve patient outcomes., Objective: To evaluate clinical effectiveness of novel PIVC securement technologies for children to reduce catheter failure., Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-arm, parallel group, superiority randomized clinical trial was conducted at 2 regional Australian hospitals from February 5, 2020, to January 14, 2022. Children aged 6 months to 8 years who were anticipated to require admission with a PIVC for at least 24 hours of in hospital treatment were eligible. Data were analyzed from May 25, 2022, to February 20, 2024., Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard care, bordered polyurethane (Tegaderm [3M]), integrated securement dressing (SorbaView SHIELD [Medline]), and integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (Secureport IV). One catheter was studied per patient., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was PIVC failure, defined as premature cessation of PIVC function for any reason prior to completion of planned treatment. Secondary outcomes were PIVC complications (any time dislodgement, occlusion, infiltration, partial dislodgement, extravasation, device leaking, phlebitis, pain), PIVC longevity, intervention acceptability (clinicians, participants, caregivers; 0-10 scale), and pain on removal (participants and caregivers; 0-10 scale relevant to age), adverse events, and health care costs., Results: A total of 383 patients (51% female; median age 36 [25th-75th percentiles, 22-72] months) were randomized 134 to standard care, 118 to integrated securement dressing, and 131 to integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive. PIVC failure was lowest in integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (15 [12%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.84) compared with integrated securement dressing (24 [21%]; aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47-1.28) and standard care (43 [34%]). Direct costs were significantly lower for integrated securement dressing with tissue adhesive (median, Australian dollars [A$], 312 [A$1 is equal to $0.65 US dollars]; IQR, A$302-A$380) and integrated securement dressing (median, A$303; IQR, A$294-A$465) compared with standard care (median, A$341; IQR, A$297-A$592; P ≤ .002) when considering the economic burden related to failure of devices. PIVC longevity and intervention acceptability were similar across all groups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, PIVCs secured with integrated securement dressings and tissue adhesive, in comparison with standard care, bordered polyurethane dressings, were associated with significantly reduced PIVC failure, for children admitted to hospital via the emergency department. Further research should focus on implementation in inpatient units where prolonged dwell and reliable intravenous access is most needed., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12619001026112.

Importance: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during treatment causing therapy interruption, pain, recatheterization, and additional health care costs. Midline catheters (MCs) may improve functional dwell time and reduce failure compared with traditional PIVCs., Objective: To compare device failure of MCs with PIVCs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial with an embedded internal pilot study conducted from July 2020 to May 2022. The study took place in a quaternary pediatric hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 1 to 18 years requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a PIVC or MC, stratified by age (≤5 years, >5 years). One catheter was studied per patient., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause device failure, defined as premature cessation of device function. Secondary outcomes included number of insertion attempts, insertion failure, pain (on insertion), procedural time, patient/parent satisfaction (with insertion), device dwell time, device complications during dwell time, additional vascular access devices required to complete treatment, clinician satisfaction (at removal), and health care costs., Results: Of the 128 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 127 patients (median [IQR] age, 7 [2-13] years; 71 male [56%]) had a device inserted, with 65 (51.2%) in the PIVC group and 62 (48.8%) in the MC group. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Device failure was lower in patients in the MC group (10 [16.1%]) compared with those in the PIVC group (30 [46.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P <.001). MCs were associated with fewer insertion attempts (mean difference [MD], -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0; P = .04), increased dwell time (MD, 66.9 hours; 95% CI, 36.2-97.5 hours; P <.001), and fewer patients required additional vascular access devices to complete treatment in the MC group (4 [6.5%]) and PIVC group (19 [29.2%]; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P = .002). Compared with PIVCs, use of MCs was associated with greater patient (9.0 vs 7.1 of 10; P = .002) and parent (9.1 vs 8.2 of 10; P = .02) satisfaction and lower health care costs (AUS -$151.67 [US -$101.13] per person; 95% credible interval, AUS -$171.45 to -$131.90 [US -$114.20 to -$87.95])., Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that MC insertion for patients requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer should be prioritized to reduce the resource intensive, expensive, and burdensome sequelae of device failure., Trial Registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12620000724976.

Background: One-third of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) fail from inflammatory or infectious complications, causing substantial treatment interruption and replacement procedures., Objectives: We aimed to compare complications between integrated PIVCs (inbuilt extension sets, wings, and flattened bases) and traditional nonintegrated PIVCs., Designs, Settings and Participants: A centrally randomized, controlled, superiority trial (with allocation concealment until study entry) was conducted in three Australian hospitals. Medical-surgical patients (one PIVC each) requiring intravenous therapy for >24 h were studied., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was device failure (composite: occlusion, infiltration, phlebitis, dislodgement, local, or bloodstream infection). Infection endpoints were assessor-masked. The secondary outcomes were: failure type, first-time insertion success, tip colonization, insertion pain, dwell time, mortality, costs, health-related quality of life, clinician, and patient satisfaction., Results: Out of 1759 patients randomized (integrated PIVC, n = 881; nonintegrated PIVC, n = 878), 1710 (97%) received a PIVC and were in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (2269 PIVC-days integrated; 2073 PIVC-days nonintegrated). Device failure incidence was 35% (145 per 1000 device-days) nonintegrated, and 33% (124 per 1000 device-days) integrated PIVCs., Intervention: Integrated PIVCs had a significantly lower failure risk (adjusted [sex, infection, setting, site, gauge] hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.69-0.96], p = .015). The per-protocol analysis was consistent (adjusted HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.68-0.95], p = .010). Integrated PIVCs had significantly longer dwell (top quartile ≥ 95 vs. ≥84 h). Mean per-patient costs were not statistically different., Conclusions: PIVC failure is common and complex. Significant risk factors include sex, infection at baseline, care setting, insertion site, catheter gauge, and catheter type. Integrated PIVCs can significantly reduce the burden of PIVC failure on patients and the health system., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Hospital Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Background: Healthcare delivery is reliant on a functional central venous access device (CVAD), but the knowledge surrounding the burden of pediatric CVAD-associated harm is limited., Methods: A prospective cohort study at a tertiary-referral pediatric hospital in Australia. Children <18 years undergoing insertion of a CVAD were screened from the operating theatre and intensive care unit records, then assessed bi-weekly for up to 3 months. Outcomes were CVAD failure and complications, and associated healthcare costs (cost of complications)., Results: 163 patients with 200 CVADs were recruited and followed for 6993 catheter days, with peripherally inserted central catheters most common (n = 119; 60%). CVAD failure occurred in 20% of devices (n = 30; 95% CI: 15-26), at an incidence rate (IR) of 5.72 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 4.09-7.78). CVAD complications were evident in 43% of all CVADs (n = 86; 95% CI: 36-50), at a rate of 12.29 per 1000 catheter days (95% CI: 9.84-15.16). CVAD failure costs were A$826 per episode, and A$165,372 per 1000 CVADs. Comparisons between current and recommended practice revealed inconsistent use of ultrasound guidance for insertion, sub-optimal tip-positioning, and appropriate device selection., Conclusions: CVAD complications and failures represent substantial burdens to children and healthcare. Future efforts need to focus on the inconsistent use of best practices., Impact: Current surveillance of central venous access device (CVAD) performance is likely under-estimating actual burden on pediatric patients and the healthcare system. CVAD failure due to complication was evident in 20% of CVADs. Costs associated with CVAD complications average at $2327 (AUD, 2020) per episode. Further investment in key diverse practice areas, including new CVAD types, CVAD pathology-based occlusion and dislodgment strategies, the appropriate use of device types, and tip-positioning technologies, will likely lead to extensive benefit., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: To understand healthcare worker and patient experience with peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) including the use of ultrasound (US)., Methods: Descriptive study using 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews conducted between August 2020 and January 2021. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients with DIVA who had PIVC experience. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Interview data were than mapped to the implementation theory Behaviour Change Wheel to inform implementation strategies., Results: In total 78 interviews (13 patients; 65 HCPs) were completed with respondents from metropolitan (60%), regional (25%) and rural/remote (15%) settings across Australia. Thematic analysis revealed 4 major themes: i) Harmful patient experiences persist, with patient insights not leveraged to effect change; ii) 'Escalation' is just a word on the front lines; iii) Heightened risk of insertion failure without resources and training; and iv) Paving the way forward-'measures need to be in place to prevent failed insertion attempts. Themes were mapped to the behaviour change wheel and implementation strategies developed, these included: staff education, e-health record for DIVA identification, DIVA standard of care and DIVA guidelines to support escalation and ultrasound use., Conclusion(s): DIVA patients continue to have poor healthcare experiences with PIVC insertion. There is poor standardisation of DIVA assessment, escalation, US use and clinician education across hospitals. Quality, safety, and education improvement opportunities exist to improve the patient with DIVA experience and prevent traumatic insertions. We identified a number of implementation strategies to support future ultrasound and DIVA pathway implementation., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Jessica Schults reports grants from Becton Dickinson unrelated to the current project. Claire Rickard: discloses that her current or previous employer has received on her behalf: investigator-initiated research grants from BD-Bard, Cardinal Health and Eloquest; and consultancy payments for lectures or opinion from 3M and BD-Bard; unrelated to current project. Nicole Marsh: reports that her affiliated universities have received on her behalf, speaker fees from 3M, investigator-initiated research grants from Becton Dickinson, Cardinal Health, Eloquest Healthcare and a consultancy payment from Becton Dickinson for clinical feedback related to peripheral intravenous catheter placement and maintenance (unrelated to the current project). Marie Cooke: discloses that her previous employer has received on her behalf: investigator-initiated research grants from BD-Bard unrelated to current project. PC, ES, RP, CB, MF, JK, GK, PS, JB, GK have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Objectives: Rates of unused ( ' idle') peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are high but can vary per setting. Understanding factors that influence the decision-making of doctors, nurses and paramedics in the emergency setting regarding PIVC insertion, and what factors may modify their decision is essential to identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary cannulations and improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aimed to understand factors associated with clinicians' decision-making on whether to insert or use a PIVC in the emergency care setting., Design: A qualitative descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews and thematic analysis., Setting: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and local government ambulance service., Participants: Participants recruited were ED clinicians (doctors, nurses) and paramedics who regularly insert PIVCs., Results: From the 15 clinicians interviewed 4 key themes: knowledge and experience, complicated and multifactorial , convenience, anticipated patient clinical course, and several subthemes emerged relating to clinician decision-making across all disciplines. The first two themes focused on decision-making to gather data and evidence, such as knowledge and experience , and decisions being complicated and multifactorial . The remaining two themes related to the actions clinicians took such as convenience and anticipated patient clinical course ., Conclusion: The decision to insert a PIVC is more complicated than clinicians, administrators and policy-makers may realise. When explored, clinician decisions were multifaceted with many factors influencing the decision to insert a PIVC. In actual practice, clinicians routinely insert PIVCs in most patients as a learnt reflex with little cognitive input. When considering PIVC insertion, more time needs to be devoted to the awareness of: (1) decision-making in the context of the clinician's own experience, (2) cognitive biases and (3) patient-centred factors. Such awareness will support an appropriate risk assessment which will benefit the patient, clinician and healthcare system., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NMM reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from vascular access product manufacturers (Becton Dickinson, 3M, Eloquest Healthcare and Cardinal Health); and a consultancy payment for expert advice from Becton Dickinson. CMR discloses that her current or previous employers have received funding on her behalf in the form of investigator initiated research grants from BD-Bard, Cardinal Health, and Eloquest Healthcare as well as consultancy payments from 3M and BD Bard. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during therapy administration, resulting in infusates pooling in the surrounding tissue. These extravasation injuries can cause significant pain, tissue destruction and scarring. ivWatch is a biosensor that uses visible and near-infrared light to measure tissue changes surrounding the PIVC and alert clinicians when extravasation may occur. The effectiveness of ivWatch, in comparison to clinical observation, in decreasing injury severity is unknown. The present study aims to investigate whether using ivWatch may potentially detect injury earlier and decrease the severity of PIVC extravasation injuries., Methods and Analysis: A single centre, parallel group, open-label superiority randomised controlled trial comparing (a) standard care (clinical observation) to (b) ivWatch monitoring in addition to standard care, to decrease the severity of extravasation injuries. 200 children with PIVCs inserted in the distal half of the limb, receiving intermediate-risk to high-risk infusates for ≥24 hours, will be consecutively recruited at a paediatric intensive care unit in Queensland, Australia. The primary outcome is extravasation severity, measured by the Cincinnati Children's Extravasation Harm Scale. Secondary outcomes include severity assessed with three-dimensional camera imaging, extravasation volume, treatment sequelae, the number of PIVCs used and dwell time, quality of life and healthcare costs. The between treatment difference in extravasation severity will be compared using ordinal logistic regression, with the treatment group included as the main effect, and reported with corresponding 95% CIs. Estimates of value will be presented as net monetary benefits and cost per reduction in extravasation injury severity, both presented with corresponding 95% credible intervals., Ethics and Dissemination: This study received approval from the Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (reference number: HREC/20/QCHQ/60867) and the Griffith University HREC (reference number: 2020/310) and will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000317998., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CAM reports travel and accommodation expenses from Roche and Smith & Nephew (unrelated to the current project), and a research grant provided to the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burns Centre from Abigo Medical AB (unrelated to the current project). JAS reports investigator-initiated research grants provided to Griffith University from BD-Bard (unrelated to the current project). TK reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from 3M Medical, Angiodynamics, Baxter, BD-Bard and Medical Specialties Australia (unrelated to the current project). JB reports investigator-initiated research grants provided to Griffith University from Becton Dickinson and Navi Technologies (unrelated to current project). AJU reports investigator-initiated research grants and speaker fees provided to Griffith University from 3M Medical, Becton Dickinson, Cardinal Health and Navi Technologies (unrelated to the current project). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review is to conduct a systematic search and establish the current state of evidence for tools and instruments used to measure self-reported outcomes and experiences, including satisfaction scores, specifically for peripheral venous access devices (PVADs)., Methods: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted using medical databases including: MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (EbscoHost); PubMed (NCBI); and Scopus (Elsevier); Google (Scholar); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Experimental, and observational studies, published in English, after 1990 will be eligible for inclusion if they: consist of (i) a survey, instrument or tool that is designed to (ii) collect outcome, experience and/or satisfaction data, relating to PVAD insertion, care, maintenance and/or removal, among (iii) adult and paediatric participants., Conclusions: PVAD-specific patient-reported outcome and experience measures are necessary for researchers, clinicians and policy decision makers to explore more thoroughly the quality of PVAD care provided, and further inform health economic analyses in the context of quality improvement interventions for vascular access devices. This scoping review will establish the existence-or paucity-of instruments to measure these selfreported outcomes and experiences of PVADs, in order to guide value-based healthcare delivery into the future.

Background: The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters., Methods: Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (<18 years) to receive (i) midline catheter and (ii) peripherally inserted central catheters. Primary outcome was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and acceptability), and the primary clinical outcome was general anesthesia requirement for intravenous catheter insertion., Secondary Outcomes: insertion time, treatment delays, infusion efficiency, device failure, complications, and cost., Results: There was 80% recruitment, 100% retention, no missing data, and high patient/staff acceptability. Mean patient experience assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.0 peripherally inserted central catheters and 9.0 (midline catheters), respectively. Participant eligibility was not achieved (49% of screened patients) and moderate protocol-adherence across groups (89% peripherally inserted central catheters vs. 76% midline catheter). Insertion of midline catheter for pulmonary optimization reduced the requirement for general anesthesia compared to peripherally inserted central catheters (10% vs. 69%; odds ratio = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.00-0.09). Midline catheters failed more frequently (18.1 vs. 5.5 peripherally inserted central catheters per 1000 catheter-days); however, this reduced over trial duration. Midline catheter insertion compared to peripherally inserted central catheters saved AUD$1451 per pulmonary optimization episode., Conclusions: An efficacy trial is feasible with expanded eligibility criteria and intensive staff training when introducing a new device. Midline catheter for peripherally compatible infusions is acceptable to patients and staff, might negate the need for general anesthesia and results in significant cost savings., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Unused ('idle') peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) are those not used within 24 hours of insertion. There is little data on cannulation practices and idle PIVC rates in emergency settings, especially the pre-hospital environment., Methods: This was an observational cohort study set in south-east Queensland, Australia using data from a large tertiary level emergency department (ED) and the local statutory ambulance service. Demographic, clinical and PIVC data were collected over two periods; 9 February-18 March 2017 and 5 January-4 February 2018. Adult patients were included if they were allocated an Australasian triage scale (ATS) category between 2 and 5, and had a PIVC inserted in the pre-hospital setting or ED. PIVC use was defined as idle if no fluids, medications or contrast were administered intravenously within 24 hours of insertion. Comparisons between pre-hospital and ED practice and idle PIVC status were undertaken using descriptive statistics and logistic regression., Results: A total of 1249 patients with a PIVC (372 pre-hospital; 877 ED) were included. Overall, 366 PIVCs (29.3%; 95% CI 26.9%-31.9%) remained idle at 24 hours. In the pre-hospital group, 147 (39.5%) PIVCs inserted were not used pre-hospital, and 74 (19.9%) remained idle. In comparison, 292 (33.3%) PIVCs placed in the ED remained idle. ED staff more frequently inserted PIVCs in the antecubital fossa than paramedics (65.5% vs. 49.7%), where forearm PIVC insertion was more common pre-hospital than in ED (13.7% vs. 7.4%). Nursing staff inserted idle PIVCs at a rate of (35.1%) compared to doctors (29.6%) and paramedics (19.9%). Having a PIVC inserted in the ED was the only factor significantly (p ≤ .001) predicting an idle outcome (Odds Ratio: 2.4; 95% CI 1.7-3.3)., Conclusion: One-third of PIVCs inserted within the emergency setting remained idle, suggesting unnecessary risk and costs. Pre-hospital and ED PIVC insertion practices differed, with idle PIVCs 2.4 times more prevalent if inserted in the ED than pre-hospital and with greater use of antecubital insertion. Reasons for these differences are not well understood and requires more targeted research., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are vital for the delivery of medical therapies, but up to 30% of PICCs are associated with complications such as deep vein thrombosis or infection. The integration of antimicrobial and hydrophobic catheter materials, and pressure-activated valves, into polyurethane PICCs are innovations designed to prevent infective and/or thrombotic complications., Methods and Analysis: A multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial with two experimental arms ((1) hydrophobic PICC (with pressure-activated valve); (2) chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated PICC (with external clamp)) and one control group ((3) conventional polyurethane PICC (with external clamp)). Recruitment of 1098 adult and paediatric patients will take place over 2 years at three tertiary-referral hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Patients are eligible for inclusion if their PICC is to be inserted for medical treatment, with a vascular size sufficient to support a 4-Fr PICC or larger, and with informed consent. The primary outcome is PICC failure , a composite of thrombotic (venous thrombosis, breakage and occlusion) and infective complications (PICC-associated bloodstream infection and local infection). Secondary outcomes include: all-cause PICC complication; thrombotic complications; infective complications; adverse events (local or systemic reaction); PICC dwell time; patient/parent satisfaction; and healthcare costs. Differences between both intervention groups and the control group will be compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Effect estimates will be presented as HRs with corresponding 95% CI., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/QCHQ/48682) and Griffith University (Ref. No. 2019/094). Results will be published., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12619000022167., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Griffith University (AJU's former employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants to support her research (unrelated from the current project) from 3M, Becton Dickinson and Cardinal Health. Griffith University (DA’s employer) has received consultancy payments for educational lectures based on her research and clinical expertise from 3M and Johnsons and Johnsons. Griffith University (TK’s employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants from 3M, Becton Dickinson and Medical Specialties Australasia. Griffith University (RMW’s employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants to support her research (unrelated to current project) from Becton Dickinson. Griffith University (NMM's former employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants to support her research (unrelated from the current project) from 3M, Becton Dickinson and Cardinal Health. Griffith University (AB's employer) has received consultancy payments from Becton Dickinson (unrelated to the current project). Griffith University (JB’s employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants to support her research (unrelated to current project) from Becton Dickinson, and Navi Technologies. PM is a member of Myeloma Advisory Boards for Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda and Amyloidosis Advisory Boards for Pfizer and Caelum. No personal fees have been received for these services. PM’s has received a research grant from Janssen for a clinical trial. PM has accommodation and registration provided by Amgen for attendance at the International Myeloma Workshop in 2019. Griffith University (CMR's former employer) has received unrestricted research and educational grants to support her research (unrelated to the current project) from 3M, Becton Dickinson and Cardinal Health. Other authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in hospitals. However, PIVC complications are common, with failures leading to treatment delays, additional procedures, patient pain and discomfort, increased clinician workload and substantially increased healthcare costs. Recent evidence suggests integrated PIVC systems may be more effective than traditional non-integrated PIVC systems in reducing phlebitis, infiltration and costs and increasing functional dwell time. The study aim is to determine the efficacy, cost-utility and acceptability to patients and professionals of an integrated PIVC system compared with a non-integrated PIVC system., Methods and Analysis: Two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of integrated versus non-integrated PIVC systems to compare effectiveness on clinical and economic outcomes. Recruitment of 1560 patients over 2 years, with randomisation by a centralised service ensuring allocation concealment. Primary outcomes: catheter failure (composite endpoint) for reasons of: occlusion, infiltration/extravasation, phlebitis/thrombophlebitis, dislodgement, localised or catheter-associated bloodstream infections., Secondary Outcomes: first time insertion success, types of PIVC failure, device colonisation, insertion pain, functional dwell time, adverse events, mortality, cost-utility and consumer acceptability. One PIVC per patient will be included, with intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline group comparisons will be made for potentially clinically important confounders. The proportional hazards assumption will be checked, and Cox regression will test the effect of group, patient, device and clinical variables on failure. An as-treated analysis will assess the effect of protocol violations. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests will compare failure by group over time. Secondary endpoints will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/QRBW/527), Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2017/002) and the South Metropolitan Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2016-239). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000089336., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MIC’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study. EL’s employer has received on her behalf: a consultancy payment from 3M, outside the submitted work. MC’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from 3M, Baxter, BD, Entrotech, outside the submitted work. NMM’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from BD, Hospira and Adhezion, outside the submitted work; consultancy payments from BD and Hospira, outside the submitted work. MCW’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from BD, outside the submitted work; consultancy payments from BD, outside the submitted work. PJJC’s employer has received on his behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study. LZ’ employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from BD, outside the submitted work. GJ’s employer has received on his behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD. CMR’s employer has received on her behalf: an unrestricted research grant from BD, during the conduct of the study; unrestricted research grants and/or educational grants from 3M, Adhezion, Angiodynamics, Bard, Baxter, BBraun, BD, Carefusion, Centurion Medical Products, Cook Medical, Entrotech, Flomedical, ICU Medical, Medical Australia, Medtronic, Smiths Medical, Teleflex, outside the submitted work; consultancy payments from 3M, Bard, BBraun, BD, Smiths Medical, ResQDevices, outside the submitted work. No commercial entity had any role in the preparation of this manuscript., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)