Trial reportJournal of hospital medicine2023
Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of hospital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international randomised controlled trial of a novel antimicrobial dressing for peripheral intravenous catheters (ProP trial).Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Trial
- Health-related quality of life and experience measures, to assess patients' experiences of peripheral intravenous catheters: a secondary data analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Trial
- Integrated versus nonintegrated peripheral intravenous catheter in hospitalized adults (OPTIMUM): A randomized controlled trial.Journal of hospital medicine · 2023Trial
- Beyond Bloodstream Infection: The Potential for Hierarchical Composite Endpoints in Vascular Access Research.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Procedural and Therapy Peripheral Intravenous Catheters: A Framework for Safety, Quality and Patient-Centred Care.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- Infection risk of peripheral intravenous catheters: meta-synthesis of 18 prospective studies with 14,606 catheters.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of continuous cefazolin infusion via peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) for outpatient therapy: a brief report.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Article
- A Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Use at Geita Regional Referral Hospital in North-Western Tanzania.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne-third of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) fail from inflammatory or infectious complications, causing substantial treatment interruption and replacement procedures.
objectivesWe aimed to compare complications between integrated PIVCs (inbuilt extension sets, wings, and flattened bases) and traditional nonintegrated PIVCs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND
participantsA 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 measuresThe 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.
resultsOut 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.
interventionIntegrated 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.
conclusionsPIVC 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.
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.