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
293 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2018-07-01
2022-07-21
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.
Safety and Bacteraemia Between Peripherally Inserted and Central Inserted Catheters.
NCT02538159
Comparison of Two Peripheral Inserted Intravenous Catheters
NCT04140916
Comparison of Early Phase Infections Risk Between Midline and Piccline Caheters: MIDLINE AND PICCLINE CATHETERS
NCT05264402
Study of Complication Rates Associated With PICC for Left vs Right
NCT01638702
Comparison Between Initial Routine PICC and General IV Access in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients
NCT03299868
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The advantage of PICC is that it can be used for all intravenous therapy. However, PICC requires the use of fluoroscopy or other type of guidance which add to the cost and time required to insert the catheter. Midline, on the other hand, can be inserted under ultrasound guidance, takes less time to be inserted and cost less than PICC insertion.
Despite lower cost and better accessibility of midline in comparison with PICC for non-vesicant intravenous therapy, there is very little evidence in the literature to suggest that one type of venous access is better than the other.
The primary objective of this study is to assess the non-inferiority for safety and efficacy of using Midline in comparison with PICC for intravenous therapy that do not require a central catheter.
Results of this trial will allow improving a quality of evidence for using midline instead of PICC for specified indications. If Midline are non-inferior for some indications, they would represent a more accessible and less expensive alternative than PICC insertion.
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
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Peripherally inserted central venous catheters
Bard PowerPICC
Bard PowerPICC
PICC Insertion
Midline
Bard PowerMidline catheter
Bard PowerMidline catheter
Midline Insertion
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Bard PowerPICC
PICC Insertion
Bard PowerMidline catheter
Midline Insertion
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Expected duration of the venous access: \> 6 days and \< 30days
Exclusion Criteria
* Patient from other hospitals who come to the CHUM only for the installation of a central line
* Decreased cognitive ability to care for device at home
* Preexisting bacteremia (ie, existing positive blood cultures that had not been repeated with negative results)
* Preexisting venous thrombosis or known hypercoagulable states (such as protein C or S deficiency, antithrombin deficiency, lupus anticoagulant)
* Venous access with multiple lumens required
* Patients not able to give informed consent
* Prior participation to this study
* Patient is enrolled in another investigational study
* Patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit
* Patients who are difficult to puncture and require multiple blood samples
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Éric Thérasse, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Centre hospitalier de l'université de Montréal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
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.
Bentridi A, Giroux MF, Soulez G, Bouchard L, Perreault P, Chouinard A, Dorais M, Do Amaral R, Bernier P, Therasse E. Midline Venous Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter for Intravenous Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Mar 3;8(3):e251258. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.1258.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
7749
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.