ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2025
A randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressors infused via peripheral cannula versus central venous access for critically ill adults: The VIPCA trial.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Incidence of Adverse Events in Peripheral Intravenous Vasopressor Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Navigating the veins: A comprehensive review of vasoactive agent infusionWorld journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Utility of a Peripheral Intravenous Catheter for Administration of Vasopressors: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial to determine whether, in critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit admission, early CVC insertion compared with late CVC insertion leads to increased days-alive-and-out-of-hospital at 30 days (DAH-30) post-treatment. Design settings and participants: We conducted a single-centre, parallel-group, feasibility randomised controlled trial with critically ill patients receiving vasopressor infusions randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive early CVC insertion (within 4 h) or late CVC insertion (after 12 h). All patients received vasopressor infusions via a peripheral intravenous cannula (PIVC) while awaiting CVC insertion. The primary clinical outcome was DAH-30 and the primary feasibility outcome was assessed by evaluating protocol adherence, rates of recruitment, randomisation of eligible patients, retention, follow-up and missing data. Results: We enrolled 40 patients, 20 patients per group between January 2023 and May 2024. Protocol adherence was significantly lower in the early CVC group (55 %) compared to the late CVC group (100 %, p < 0.001). The early CVC group had a median time to CVC insertion of 3.3 h (interquartile range (IQR) 1.2-3.7 h), within the 4-h target. The early and late CVC groups had a median (IQR) of 13.5 (0.0-23.5) and 19.0 (5.0-23.0) DAH-30 respectively (P = 0.18). PIVC complications were similar between the two groups with no severe complications. There were no complications among the 18 CVCs inserted during the trial. Conclusions: Protocol adherence in the early CVC was much lower than the late CVC. Some protocol modifications will be required to enable the conduct of a larger-scale definitive trial. Trial Registration: ACTRN12621000721808 (Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).
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.