Dataset Information

Comparison of ECG Saline-Conduction Technique and ECG Wire-Based Technique for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is commonly used in medicine. The tip position was shown to be a major determinant in PICC function and related complications. Recent advances in ECG guidance might facilitate daily practice. This study aimed to compare two ECG techniques, in terms of their tip-position accuracy, puncture site layout, and signal quality; (2) Methods: This randomized open study (1:1) included 320 participants. One PICC guidance technique used ECG signal transmission with saline (ST); the other technique used a guidewire (WT). Techniques were compared by the distance between the catheter tip and the cavoatrial junction (DCAJ) on chest X-rays, insertion-point hemostasis time, and the extracorporeal catheter length between the hub and the insertion point; (3) Results: The mean DCAJs were significantly different between ST (1.36 cm, 95% CI: 1.22-1.37) and WT (1.12 cm, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25; p = 0.013) groups. When DCAJs were classified as optimal, suboptimal, or inadequate, the difference between techniques had limited clinical impact (p = 0.085). However, the hemostasis time at the puncture site was significantly better with WT (no delay in 82% of patients) compared to ST (no delay in 50% of patients; p < 0.001). Conversely, ST achieved optimal and suboptimal extracorporeal lengths significantly more frequently than WT (100% vs. 66%; p < 0.001); (4) Conclusions: ECG guidance technologies achieved significantly different tip placements, but the difference had minimal clinical impact. Nevertheless, each technique displayed an important drawback at the PICC insertion point: the extracorporeal catheter was significantly longer with WT and the hemostasis delay was significantly longer with ST.

SUBMITTER: Gullo G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10857526 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of ECG Saline-Conduction Technique and ECG Wire-Based Technique for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Gullo Giuseppe G Frossard Pierre P Colin Anaïs A Qanadli Salah Dine SD

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20240130 3

(1) Background: The peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is commonly used in medicine. The tip position was shown to be a major determinant in PICC function and related complications. Recent advances in ECG guidance might facilitate daily practice. This study aimed to compare two ECG techniques, in terms of their tip-position accuracy, puncture site layout, and signal quality; (2) Methods: This randomized open study (1:1) included 320 participants. One PICC guidance technique used ECG s ...[more]

PMID: 38339610

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about the safety of midline catheters vs peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT).ObjectiveTo compare outcomes from midline catheters vs PICCs for OPAT.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included patients who received antimicrobial therapy through a midline catheter or PICC between January 2017 and November 2023 across 69 Michigan hospitals. Because peripherally compatible OPAT was the indication of interest, vancomycin therapy was excluded. Data were analyzed from April to June 2024.ExposuresInsertion of a midline catheter or PICC for OPAT following hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was major device complications (ie, catheter-related bloodstream infection or catheter-related venous thromboembolism). Secondary outcomes included minor device complications (eg, catheter dislodgement, occlusion, tip migration, infiltration, superficial thrombophlebitis, or exit site concerns) and device failure, defined as catheter removal following device complication. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to device type and outcomes, adjusting for patient and device confounders and device dwell.ResultsOf 2824 included patients, 1487 (53.5%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 66.8 (55.9-77.1) years. Of 2824 devices placed for OPAT, 1999 (70.8%) were midline catheters and 825 (29.2%) were PICCs. The median (IQR) dwell time was 12 (8-17) days for midline catheters and 19 (12-27) days for PICCs (P < .001). A major device complication occurred in 44 patients (1.6%) overall, including 16 (0.8%) with midline catheters and 28 (3.4%) with PICCs (P < .001). OPAT delivered via midline catheters was associated with a lower risk of major complications vs PICCs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.91). Risks of minor complications and device failure were similar across device types (minor complications: 206 of 1999 [10.3%] vs 114 of 825 [13.8%]; aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.38; device failure: 191 of 1999 [9.6%] vs 100 of 825 [12.1%]; aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.96-1.65). For device dwell of 14 or fewer days, midline catheters were associated with a lower risk of major complications (12 of 1324 [0.9%] vs 16 of 304 [5.3%]; aHR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.68) and similar risk of failure (151 of 1324 [11.4%] vs 52 of 304 [17.1%]; aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56-1.12) vs PICCs. For dwell longer than 14 days, no significant difference in rates of major complications (4 of 675 [0.6%] vs 12 of 521 [2.3%]; aHR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.13-1.40) or device failure (40 of 675 [5.9%] vs 48 of 521 [9.2%]; aHR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.64-1.61) were observed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, midline catheters appeared to be safe alternatives to PICCs for OPAT, particularly if infusions were planned for 14 or fewer days.

Project description:ImportancePeripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used for peripheral intravenous therapy (IVT) that could be administered through a peripheral midline venous catheter (MVC).ObjectiveTo assess the noninferiority of MVCs compared with PICCs as a reliable vascular access for peripheral IVT and blood draws for IVT that does not require a central VC.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted in a single tertiary care center from September 2018 to March 2022. Participants were all consecutive adult patients who were referred for PICC and eligible for MVC. Patients likely to require a central VC (those in the critical care unit, those with kidney failure, or those requiring a multilumen VC) were excluded. Analyses were based on the evaluable population.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 to either MVC or PICC. For the MVC group, a 20-cm-long, 4F (French), single-lumen MVC without a valve was used without fluoroscopic assistance. For the PICC group, a 4F, single-lumen PICC without a valve was positioned under fluoroscopy at the cavoatrial junction.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the percentage of patients without VC-related adverse events or dysfunctions requiring medical intervention during follow-up. A noninferiority test was performed to compare the proportion of adverse events or dysfunctions between the MVC and PICC groups. A noninferiority margin was set at 10% and a 5% 1-sided significance level.ResultsOf the 6821 patients referred to the tertiary care center for PICC insertion, 294 (180 males [61.2%]; median [IQR] age, 56.3 [38.2-66.7] years) were randomized to receive MVCs (n = 146) or PICCs (n = 148); 135 and 137 participants, respectively, were included in data analysis after exclusion of those who did not complete follow-up. Ninety of 135 patients (66.7%) in the MVC group and 128 of 137 (93.4%) in the PICC group were without VC-related adverse event or dysfunction. The noninferiority of MVC could not be demonstrated (P > .99 for noninferiority).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, MVCs were associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with VC-related adverse events or dysfunctions and could not be demonstrated as a noninferior alternative to PICCs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03502980.

Dataset Information

Comparison of ECG Saline-Conduction Technique and ECG Wire-Based Technique for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Comparison of ECG Saline-Conduction Technique and ECG Wire-Based Technique for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets