SHERLOCK 3CG vs. Fluoroscopy in Implantation of PICC-Line
NCT ID: NCT02929368
Last Updated: 2020-03-10
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
210 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2016-06-30
2018-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
A Study to Assess Placement and Confirmation of Peripheral Inserted Central Catheters Tip Position Using a New Electrocardiographic Method
NCT01969981
Non-Inferiority Study to Compare the Effectiveness of the Seldinger Over-the-Wire Technique and the Modified Seldinger Technique
NCT04303052
FX vs. ECG Guidance for PICC Insertion
NCT03652727
Self-invented Intracavitary ECG Wire VS the Commercial System - Certodyn®
NCT03697291
Observational Study of Complications Related to Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
NCT01578993
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The referral of patients with indication to PICC-Line implantation at the institute of diagnostic and interventional radiology occurs through different departments of the University Hospital Jena. The patients are registered for radiological treatment and checked again by a radiologist if a PICC-Line implantation is indicated. If this is the case, the radiologist conducts an informed consent discussion with the patient about possible complications and risks during intervention and informs him also about a possible study. After signature of the written informed consent, the patient is included. On the intervention day, the patient is randomly assigned to one of the two study arms through RandomTool (Sherlock vs. fluoroscopy). According to randomization group, the PICC catheter is implanted (duration: 30 minutes) and eventually a chest x-ray (fluoroscopy) is performed to assess safety and efficacy.The intervention time from puncture to catheter placement is documented. After intervention, the patient is transferred back to the ward or sent home in hemodynamically stable conditions. The examination of the puncture site before discharge is performed by a ward physician or by the family doctor. 24 h after PICC-Line implantation, the treating physician is contacted and questioned about possible complications (catheter occlusion, haematoma, infection of the puncture site, arm vein thrombosis, pain, etc.), that are then thoroughly documented.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Fluoroscopy
PICC Implantation under x-ray
PICC implantation under fluoroscopy
PICC Catheter implantation
Sherlock System (BARD)
PICC Implantation with Integrated Magnetic Tracking and ECG-guided Tip Location System
PICC Implantation under Sherlock System
PICC Catheter implantation
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
PICC implantation under fluoroscopy
PICC Catheter implantation
PICC Implantation under Sherlock System
PICC Catheter implantation
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* adults ≥ 18 years
* medical indication for Power-PICC-Line catheter implantation because of chemotherapy or parenertal nutrition
* in- and outpatients
Exclusion Criteria
* systemic or local infection of the interventional location
* known allergy to used material
* general contraindication of Power-PICC-Line catheter implantation
* nonexistent sinus rhythm (5)
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Jena University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ulf Teichgräber
Director of Radiology Department
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Heike Habrecht, Dr. med.
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University Hospital Jena, Germany
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University Hospital Jena
Jena, Thuringia, Germany
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Mack V, Nissler D, Kasikci D, Malouhi A, Aschenbach R, Teichgraber U. Magnetic Tracking and Electrocardiography-Guided Tip Confirmation System Versus Fluoroscopy for Placement of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: A Randomized, Noninferiority Comparison. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020 Dec;43(12):1891-1897. doi: 10.1007/s00270-020-02551-0. Epub 2020 Jun 17.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
4567/10/15
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.