Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34613402›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2021

Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Amit Bahl, Emily Diloreto, David Jankowski, Mahmoud Hijazi, Nai-Wei Chen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03725293 (Randomized Comparative Evaluation of Midline Catheters for Thrombophlebitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03725293 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Comparative Evaluation of Midline Catheters for Thrombophlebitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorCorewell Health EastRan2019 to 2020Enrolled212ConditionsCatheter Infection, Catheter Thrombosis, Catheter ComplicationsArmsAngiodynamics BioFlo Midline Catheter, Teleflex Arrowg+ard Blue Advanced Midline Catheter
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amit BahlDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Emily DiloretoVascular Access Team, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
David JankowskiBeaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Mahmoud HijaziOakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Rochester, Michigan.
Nai-Wei ChenBeaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak · USOakland University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis (CRT) are sparse, with some evidence indicating that MCs have a high rate of CRT. Objective: To compare 2 MCs with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for this outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this parallel, 2-arm randomized clinical trial, 496 adult patients hospitalized at a tertiary care suburban academic medical center who received an MC were assessed for eligibility between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020, and 212 were randomized. Interventions: Inpatients were randomized to receive a 4F antithrombotic MC (MC-AT) or a 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial MC (MC-AT-AM). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic midline CRT inclusive of deep vein thrombosis or superficial venous thrombophlebitis within 30 days after insertion. Secondary outcomes included catheter-associated bloodstream infection and catheter failure. Results: A total of 191 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [16.7] years; 114 [59.7%] female) were included in the final analysis: 94 patients in the MC-AT group and 97 in the MC-AT-AM group. Symptomatic midline CRT occurred in 7 patients (7.5%) in the MC-AT group and 11 (11.3%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .46). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) in the MC-AT group and 5 patients (5.2%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P > .99). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1 patient in the MC-AT group. No catheter-associated bloodstream infection occurred in either group. Premature catheter failure occurred in 22 patients (23.4%) in the MC-AT group and 20 (20.6%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .64). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for the risk of catheter failure (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.67-2.43; P = .46). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in thrombosis in MCs with 2 distinct antithrombogenic mechanisms; however, the risk of CRT in both groups was high. Practitioners should strongly consider the safety risks associated with MCs when determining the appropriate vascular access device. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03725293.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCatheterization, Central VenousCatheterization, PeripheralCathetersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVenous Thrombosis

Identifiers

PMID34613402
PMCPMC8495531
OpenAlexW3202668401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.