Superior Venous Access, Midline vs Ultrasound IVs

Boston Medical Center (BMC)

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Vascular Access Complication

Ultrasound Therapy; Complications

Treatments

Device: Ultrasound Guided Peripheral IV Catheter

Device: Midline Catheter

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Industry

Identifiers

NCT03440944

H-37285 (Other Grant/Funding Number)

Details and patient eligibility

About

Obtaining intravenous access (IVA) is the most common procedure performed in the emergency department (ED). Placement of IVA allows for blood work and delivery of intravenous fluids and medications. The implementation of ultrasound guided peripheral IVs (UGPIV) have allowed for ultrasound to be used to place an IV into patients with difficult vein access (DVA). An alternative device to place is a midline catheter (MC). The use of MCs against UGPIV has not been compared in a randomized study. Aim 1: To determine if UGPIVs have a higher failure rate than midline catheters within 72 hours of placement. Aim 2: To collect information to perform a direct cost analysis of UGPIV against that of the midline catheter. Aim 3: Assess patient satisfaction.

Full description

This is a randomized controlled trial to determine if the midline catheter is superior to the ultrasound guided IV with respect to survival at 72 hours.

Aim 1: To determine if UGPIVs have a higher failure rate than midline catheters within 72 hours of placement. There are several reasons why UGPIVs may fail. UGPIVs are shorter than midline catheters, and shorter catheters may fail due to infiltration which can be a result of malposition as well as having the catheter pull out of the vessel. It is being hypothesized that by using a midline catheter with a guidewire for placement with additional catheter length placed into the vessel, midlines will be superior to UGP\Vs with regards to survival time of the catheter. The investigators will assess catheter survival daily until 72 hours (when UGPIV are recommended to be changed). The total lifetime of the midline catheters will be recorded.

Aim 2: To perform a direct cost analysis of UGPIV against that of the midline catheter. This study will not be large enough to complete a robust cost effectiveness analysis to compare UGPIV to mid line catheters. As a part of this study the investigators will collect information including but not limited to: the number of catheters used for IVA attempts, time for placement of each device complications, and need for additional IVA during hospitalization.

Aim 3: For patients that remain hospitalized at 72 hours a satisfaction survey will be administered to determine patient experience and preference for the type of vascular access that they receive.

Enrollment

18 patients

Sex

All

Ages

18+ years old

Volunteers

No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

Patient at least 18 years of age being treated in the emergency department at Boston Medical Center
Standard IVA cannot be obtained by two qualified ER staff
Have an upper extremity (left or right arm) that can accept a deep venous IV
Clinical team believes the patient is likely to require inpatient admission at time of needing IV access
English speaking
Able to provide consent

Exclusion criteria

Patient expected to be discharged from the emergency department or discharged from the hospital within 1 nights stay.
Prisoner
Pregnancy
Requires central line or midline catheter as an expected requirement of care
Patients who are expected to require medication that is not approved for administration via a peripherally guided IV or midline as defined by hospital pharmacy guidelines.
Patients known to have bacteremia or have a high suspicion of bacteremia
The patient is known or is suspected to be allergic to materials contained in the device