Safety and Efficacy of Midline and PICC

NCT ID: NCT03502980

Last Updated: 2022-07-25

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

293 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-07-01

Study Completion Date

2022-07-21

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose 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.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Vascular access devices (VADs), including peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) remain a cornerstone for the delivery of necessary intravenous therapy. PICCs are being selected for venous access more frequently today than ever before.

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.

Vascular Access Devices Central Venous Catheter

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

SUPPORTIVE_CARE

Blinding Strategy

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

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Bard PowerPICC

Intervention Type DEVICE

PICC Insertion

Midline

Bard PowerMidline catheter

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Bard PowerMidline catheter

Intervention Type DEVICE

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

Intervention Type DEVICE

Bard PowerMidline catheter

Midline Insertion

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Required intra venous therapy
* Expected duration of the venous access: \> 6 days and \< 30days

Exclusion Criteria

* Patient has a contraindication to insertion of either a Midline or a PICC relative to the therapy
* 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
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

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

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

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

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Canada

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.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 40111366 (View on PubMed)

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.

CVCs Versus Midline Catheters
NCT06884176 NOT_YET_RECRUITING NA
Central Line Study
NCT05534971 RECRUITING PHASE4