Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Safety and Efficacy of Midline vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Among Adults Receiving IV Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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.
Comparison of Two Peripherally Inserted Catheters: a Central Venous and a Midline
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
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative safety and effectiveness of midline catheters vs. peripherally inserted central catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Central venous versus short midline catheter in difficult intravenous access patients: a randomised clinical pilot trial.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- Midline Venous Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter for Intravenous Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Multidisciplinary Advanced Practice Nursing-Led Vascular Access Care Pathway in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis: A Practice-Based Descriptive Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with tunnelled non-cuffed centrally inserted central catheters: a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Factors influencing nurses' knowledge on peripherally inserted central catheter care in Guizhou, China: A web-based cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Real-World Comparison of Intravenous vs. Oral Antimicrobial Therapy for Bone and Joint Infections.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Topology preserving embedded network for PICC segmentation in pediatric X ray images.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Prospective study of the behavior of totally implantable catheters in female oncology patients with mammary hypertrophy.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Safety of Mini-Midline Catheters for Intravenous Antimicrobial Therapy Not Exceeding 14 Days: Treatment Completion Rate and Re-Catheterization Needs.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting PICC catheter-related bloodstream infection among patients with hematologic malignancies.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Efficacy of single-lumen and double-lumen peripherally inserted central catheters in patients undergoing digestive surgery within bundled care contexts.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Unveiling the complexities of catheter-related thrombosis: risk factors, preventive strategies, and management.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Dynamic shifts in pathogen ecology of catheter-related bloodstream infections: temporal trends and ward-specific risk landscapes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Incidence of Catheter-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Stem Cell Recipients-Should We Be "PICCy"?Cancers · 2024Article
- Analysis of the Integrated Management Model of Medical Care and Medication in Intravenous Treatment for Critically Ill Patients.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Venous access devices (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.