Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38349655›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Simon L Thomsen, Rikke Boa, Lars Vinter-Jensen, Bodil S Rasmussen

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04140916 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Two Peripherally Inserted Catheters: a Central Venous and a Midline

TypeinterventionalSponsorAalborg University HospitalRan2018 to 2022Enrolled304ConditionsCatheter-Related Infections, Catheter Related ComplicationArmsMidline catheter, PICC-line catheter
NCT06770374 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of a Zinc Oxide Adhesive Securement Device in the Fixation of Midline and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Hospitalized Adult Patients: Randomised Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Arnau de VilanovaRan2025 to 2026Enrolled400ConditionsVascular Access Complication, Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders, Phlebitis, PainArmsControl group: acrylic adhesive sutureless fixation device, Intervention Group: zinc oxide sutureless fixation device, PICC, Midline, Ultrasound scanner
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Venous access devices (Review).Medicine international
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon L ThomsenDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Rikke BoaDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Lars Vinter-JensenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Centre for Nutrition and Intestinal Failure, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Bodil S RasmussenDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Midline catheters (MCs) are widely used, but safety and efficacy compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has not been adequately evaluated. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of MCs with PICCs among adult patients with an anticipated intravenous therapy lasting from 5 to 28 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, open-label, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in Denmark from October 2018 to February 2022 at a single academic tertiary care center. Adult inpatients and outpatients were consecutively randomized. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the MC group or the PICC control group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), analyzed using the Fisher exact test. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis and catheter failure, including mechanical cause, phlebitis, infiltration, pain in relation to drug or fluid administration, and leaking from the puncture site. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to assess between-group failure rates over device dwell time using Poisson regression. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: A total of 304 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.6 [13.5] years; 130 [42.8%] female) were included in the analysis, and 152 patients were allocated to each catheter group. The incidence of CRBSI was low, with 0 in the MC group and 1 in the PICC control group (P > .99). The MC group had a higher catheter-related complication rate (20 [13.2%] vs 11 [7.2%]), and an IRR of 2.37 (95% CI, 1.12-5.02; P = .02) for complications compared with the PICC control group. In a post hoc analysis stratified by catheter dwell time, no significant difference in complication rate (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.50-2.68; P = .73) was found between the 2 groups for catheters used less than 16 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this RCT with patients who received medium- to long-term intravenous therapy, the incidence of CRBSI was low, with no difference between MCs and PICCs. The use of MCs resulted in a higher incidence of catheter-related complications compared with use of PICCs. This finding should be balanced in the decision of type of catheter used at the individual patient level. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04140916.

Indexed as

InpatientsPuncturesAdultCathetersControl GroupsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutpatients

Identifiers

PMID38349655
PMCPMC10865154
OpenAlexW4391775428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.