Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41651529›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Ultra long peripheral catheter versus accelerated Seldinger technique long peripheral catheter in difficult intravenous access patients (ULAST): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial protocol.

Wouter Pieteraerens, Domien Vanhonacker, Katrien Beeckman, Tim Torsy

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07005310 (Ultra Long Peripheral Catheter Versus Accelerated Seldinger Technique Long Peripheral Catheter in Difficult Intravenous Access Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT07005310 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Ultra Long Peripheral Catheter Versus Accelerated Seldinger Technique Long Peripheral Catheter in Difficult Intravenous Access Patients: a Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity GhentRan2025 to 2026Enrolled100ConditionsDifficult Intravenous Access, AdultsArmsPowerglide pro™, Introcan safety deep access
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Wouter PieteraerensFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium wouter.pieteraerens@uzbrussel.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5595-3007
Domien VanhonackerDepartement of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Katrien BeeckmanNursing and Midwifery Research Group (NUMID), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Tim TorsySkin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2495-1690

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUltrasound-guided peripheral cannulation by specialised nurses is increasingly used to improve first-stick success rates in patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA). Long peripheral catheters are indicated for extended dwell times and the reduction of central venous catheters and their associated complications. Recently, multiple types of catheters and insertion techniques have been used in clinical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, two-arm, single-centre, non-blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial will compare two types of long peripheral catheters. A 63 mm ultra-long peripheral catheter using the catheter-over-needle approach will be compared with an 80-100 mm accelerated Seldinger technique-long peripheral catheter, which is the standard of care. Adult inpatients with DIVA, requiring a long peripheral catheter, will be included. The study aims to compare the mean dwell time, therapy completion rates and incidences of catheter-related thrombosis, infections, phlebitis, infiltration, loss of catheter usability and unplanned removal among adult DIVA patients. A priori sample size calculation based on average dwell times from published studies indicates that a minimum of 52 patients (26 per group) is needed. Consecutive sampling will be used until the sample size is reached. Upon signing the informed consent form, patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Due to the distinct visual differences between the two types of long peripheral catheters, blinding the inserter during the procedure is impractical. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics committee of Ghent University (B6702024000487) and University Hospital of Brussels approved this study. On completion of the study, results will be disseminated via publication in a relevant peer-reviewed scientific journal. No external funding was received for the execution of this trial. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT07005310. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 1, 17/03/2025.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralAdultCatheter-Related InfectionsHumansPhlebitisPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUltrasonography, InterventionalAdult intensive & critical careANAESTHETICSPatientsRandomized Controlled TrialULTRASONOGRAPHY

Identifiers

PMID41651529
PMCPMC12887470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.