Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38739611›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressor infusion administered via peripheral cannula versus central venous catheter for critically ill adults: A study protocol.

Stacey Watts, Yogesh Apte, Thomas Holland, April Hatt, Alison Craswell, Frances Lin, Alexis Tabah, Robert Ware, Joshua Byrnes, Christopher Anstey and 2 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Stacey WattsCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6729-016X
Yogesh ApteCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8503-3148
Thomas HollandCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.
April HattCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-7559-8862
Alison CraswellCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.
Frances LinCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8735-5469
Alexis TabahJames Mayne Academy of Critical Care, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Robert WareMenzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.
Christopher AnsteyMenzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.
Gerben KeijzersMenzies Health Institute Queensland and School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Southport, Australia.
Mahesh RamananCaboolture Hospital, Caboolture, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4509-4015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen clinicians need to administer a vasopressor infusion, they are faced with the choice of administration via either peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) or central venous catheter (CVC). Vasopressor infusions have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVC) rather than Peripheral Intra Venous Catheters (PIVC), primarily due to concerns of extravasation and resultant tissue injury. This practice is not guided by contemporary randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Observational data suggests safety of vasopressor infusion via PIVC. To address this evidence gap, we have designed the "Vasopressors Infused via Peripheral or Central Access" (VIPCA) RCT.

methodsThe VIPCA trial is a single-centre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT. Eligible critically ill patients requiring a vasopressor infusion will be identified by emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) staff and randomised to receive vasopressor infusion via either PIVC or CVC. Primary outcome is feasibility, a composite of recruitment rate, proportion of eligible patients randomised, protocol fidelity, retention and missing data. Primary clinical outcome is days alive and out of hospital up to day-30. Secondary outcomes will include safety and other clinical outcomes, and process and cost measures. Specific aspects of safety related to vasopressor infusions such as extravasation, leakage, device failure, tissue injury and infection will be assessed. DISCUSSION: VIPCA is a feasibility RCT whose outcomes will inform the feasibility and design of a multicentre Phase-3 trial comparing routes of vasopressor delivery. The exploratory economic analysis will provide input data for the full health economic analysis which will accompany any future Phase-3 RCT.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralCentral Venous CathetersCritical IllnessFeasibility StudiesVasoconstrictor AgentsAdultCatheterization, Central VenousFemaleHumansInfusions, IntravenousIntensive Care UnitsMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVasoconstrictor Agents

Identifiers

PMID38739611
PMCPMC11090297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.