Trial reportJAMA network open2021
Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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.
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.
Randomized Comparative Evaluation of Midline Catheters for Thrombophlebitis
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative safety and efficacy of midline catheters versus long peripheral catheters in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Mapping the Evidence on Midline Catheter Tip Location, Confirmation Methods and Associated Characteristics: A Scoping Review.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Catheter-Related Superficial Venous Thrombosis of the Upper Extremity: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence, Diagnostic Pathways, and Management Strategies.Journal of blood medicine · 2026Review
- Study on PTFE superhydrophobic coating modified by IC@dMSNs and its enhanced antibacterial effect.Journal of advanced research · 2025Article
- Catheter-related deep vein thrombosis: Where are we at and where are we going? Updates and ongoing unmet clinical needs.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Risk Factors for Midline Catheter Failure: A Secondary Analysis of an Existing Trial.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.