Peripherally Inserted Central CathetersPhase 2NCT01765738
Comparison of an Antibiotic Impregnated PICC Catheter Versus a Regular PICC Catheter in a Tertiary Care Setting
A Phase 2 study testing PICC (Cook, Bard) in people with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters, run by Medical University of South Carolina at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
To determine whether antibiotic impregnated PICC catheters have a lower infection rate than a conventional PICC catheter in a tertiary care patient population. Secondary goals will be to determine if there is a difference between the two catheters with early and late infections, to determine the cost comparison… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
- What is being tested?
- PICC (Cook, Bard)
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2013to Sep 2016
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Greater than or equal to 18 years of age
- Have been scheduled for a medically necessary PICC placement
Who cannot join
- Less than 18 years of age
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
About this study
Official title: Randomized Double Blind Comparison of an Antibiotic Impregnated PICC Catheter Versus a Regular PICC Catheter in a Tertiary Care Setting
To determine whether antibiotic impregnated PICC catheters have a lower infection rate than a conventional PICC catheter in a tertiary care patient population. Secondary goals will be to determine if there is a difference between the two catheters with early and late infections, to determine the cost comparison including extra cost of treatment for a line related infection, to determine if there are any non-infectious related complication differences between the two catheters.
Read the detailed description
All patients who are referred to VIR for a PICC line will be evaluated to see if they satisfy the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The study will be discussed with those who do and informed consent will be obtained from those wishing to participate. The patient will then be randomized to one of two types of PICC lines. All lines will be placed by identical technique. This will include sterile technique, placement via a vein of the upper arm using ultrasound guidance, and positioning of the catheter tip under fluoroscopic guidance. A database of all catheters placed will be kept. Records will be reviewed at 1 week, 30 days, and 60 days by the Interventional Radiology Fellow.Review will include length of time catheter was in place, whether treatment was completed, whether catheter was removed prematurely, the clinical reason for removal, results of other imaging tests, and results of cultures on any catheters removed for suspicion of infection. Any non-infectious complications related to the catheter will also be noted. The reviewer will be blinded to which catheter was used during the procedure.
- Conditions
- Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
- Being tested
- PICC (Cook, Bard)
- Keywords
- PICC
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PICC (Cook, Bard)Device
Also called Minocycline/Rifampin Power-Injectable PICC, PowerPICC Power Injection PICCs
Comparison of antibiotic coated PICC vs. non-coated PICC
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic coated PICC | Active comparator | Cook Medical Spectrum Turbo-Ject Minocycline/Rifampin Power-Injectable PICC (5fr double lumen or 6fr triple lumen) Receives: Device: PICC (Cook, Bard) |
| Non-antibiotic coated PICC | Active comparator | Bard Access PowerPICC Power Injection PICCs (6fr double lumen or 6fr. triple lumen) Receives: Device: PICC (Cook, Bard) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Infection rate
Records will be reviewed up to 60 days post PICC line procedure to assess whether catheter was removed prematurely for infection and results of cultures on any catheters removed.
Measured: 60 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jan 2013 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2013
- Primary completionSep 2016
- Study completionSep 2016
Why it stopped: Project never received funding.
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Peripherally Inserted Central CathetersStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of South Carolina
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- J. Bayne Selby, MD, Principal investigator, Medical University of South Carolina
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01765738
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PICC Line Comparison
- Status last verified
- Sep 2016
- First submitted
- 8 Jan 2013
- Last updated
- 18 Jun 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Jun 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Double Blind Comparison of an Antibiotic Impregnated PICC Catheter Versus a Regular PICC Catheter in a Tertiary Care Setting
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01765738
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PICC Line Comparison
- Conditions
- Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
- Keywords
- PICC
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Project never received funding.
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of South CarolinaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2013
- Primary completion
- Sep 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Jan 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To determine whether antibiotic impregnated PICC catheters have a lower infection rate than a conventional PICC catheter in a tertiary care patient population. Secondary goals will be to determine if there is a difference between the two catheters with early and late infections, to determine the cost comparison including extra cost of treatment for a line related infection, to determine if there are any non-infectious related complication differences between the two catheters.
Detailed description
All patients who are referred to VIR for a PICC line will be evaluated to see if they satisfy the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The study will be discussed with those who do and informed consent will be obtained from those wishing to participate. The patient will then be randomized to one of two types of PICC lines. All lines will be placed by identical technique. This will include sterile technique, placement via a vein of the upper arm using ultrasound guidance, and positioning of the catheter tip under fluoroscopic guidance. A database of all catheters placed will be kept. Records will be reviewed at 1 week, 30 days, and 60 days by the Interventional Radiology Fellow.Review will include length of time catheter was in place, whether treatment was completed, whether catheter was removed prematurely, the clinical reason for removal, results of other imaging tests, and results of cultures on any catheters removed for suspicion of infection. Any non-infectious complications related to the catheter will also be noted. The reviewer will be blinded to which catheter was used during the procedure.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic coated PICC | Active comparator | Device: PICC (Cook, Bard)Cook Medical Spectrum Turbo-Ject Minocycline/Rifampin Power-Injectable PICC (5fr double lumen or 6fr triple lumen) |
| Non-antibiotic coated PICC | Active comparator | Device: PICC (Cook, Bard)Bard Access PowerPICC Power Injection PICCs (6fr double lumen or 6fr. triple lumen) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Greater than or equal to 18 years of age
- Have been scheduled for a medically necessary PICC placement
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Less than 18 years of age
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PICC (Cook, Bard)Also: Minocycline/Rifampin Power-Injectable PICC, PowerPICC Power Injection PICCsComparison of antibiotic coated PICC vs. non-coated PICC | Device | Antibiotic coated PICC, Non-antibiotic coated PICC |
Primary outcome
Infection rate
Time frame: 60 days
Records will be reviewed up to 60 days post PICC line procedure to assess whether catheter was removed prematurely for infection and results of cultures on any catheters removed.
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Jun 2018.
Related trials for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
RecruitingPhase 3
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis With REGN7508 and REGN9933 in Adult and Adolescent Participants With a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Efficacy and Safety of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters
Critical Illness, Catheter-Related Infections
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Different PICC Catheterization Methods: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Cancer Patients
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Image-Guided Central Catheter Insertion With Concurrent Assessment of Vascular Wall Integrity
PICC Line Placement, Vessels; Anomaly
RecruitingObservational study
Magnetic Tracking and ECG-Guided Tip Confirmation System for PICCs
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
J. Bayne Selby, MD principal investigator
Medical University of South Carolina
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing PICC (Cook, Bard) in people with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters, run by Medical University of South Carolina at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Jun 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Infection rate (time frame: 60 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Jun 2018.