Central Venous CatheterNCT03647293
Less Pain in Neonates During Central Lines Insertion
A study testing Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in people with Central Venous Catheter and Neonates, run by Saint George Hospital.
Trial summary
Central venous access is an imperative measure used in neonates whether being a peri-operative measure for children undergoing cardiac procedures for congenital heart diseases or as a mean of nutrition in neonatal enteral malnutrition and drug administration in oncology patients. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages Up to 1 month
- Conditions the study is for
- Central Venous Catheter, Neonates, Pain
- What is being tested?
- Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 61 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Nov 2016to May 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 Up to 1 month
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- neonates requiring TPN
- antibiotic therapy for at least 7 days
- babies with poor or difficult venous access
Who cannot join
- refusal to sign consent
- patients with previously attempted or placed central lines
- patients who were converted from one technique to the other
About this study
Official title: Ultrasound Guided Central Line Insertion in Neonates: Pain Score Results From a Prospective Study
Central venous access is an imperative measure used in neonates whether being a peri-operative measure for children undergoing cardiac procedures for congenital heart diseases or as a mean of nutrition in neonatal enteral malnutrition and drug administration in oncology patients. Central catheters fall into two categories, a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line or centrally inserted central catheters (CICC). Although these two modalities practically have the same aim, identifying the more effective technique is imperative for deciding which procedure should be applied to ameliorate patient outcomes. Many studies have been previously done that delineate the indications for central venous access with practically no absolute contraindications. These indications include central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, poor venous access, volume resuscitation, and prolonged venous access in critically ill patients, total parenteral nutrition (TPN), cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and medication administration. Centrally inserted catheters have evolved from being blindly inserted catheters using landmarks techniques, is the usual standard of care, to being placed under direct visualization using ultrasound guidance. Since its first use back in the 90's, ultrasound guided insertion of central venous catheters has gained attention and successful attempts have been made to improve this technique. US-guidance initially used acoustic Doppler techniques but is now largely replaced by two-dimensional (2D) imaging and internal jugular vein (IJV) being the preferred site of insertion by US over femoral and subclavian vein. Several studies have compared these two techniques. Small-caliber vessels remain a great challenge in the pediatric population which backup the use of imaging modalities for a successful and safer insertion of CVCs.
This study aims to develop a better understanding of pain during central line insertions, compare pain scores between the two techniques in order to adopt the less painful technique and ultimately provide insight about the use of analgesics during these procedures for a better outcome.
Read the detailed description
A single-center prospective randomized controlled study of neonates (preterm and term babies) who underwent an elective or emergent central line insertion between November 2016 and May 2017 was conducted at SGHUMC Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Hospital's Institutional Review Board approved the study and an informed parental consent was signed for study entry. Inclusion criteria included neonates requiring TPN, antibiotic therapy for at least 7 days, and babies with poor or difficult venous access. Exclusion criteria included refusal to sign consent, patients with previously attempted or placed central lines, and patients who were converted from one technique to the other. Patients were randomized into the control and intervention group through a flip of coin each time a patient enrolled in the study The catheter used for all the patients was an epicutaneo-cava-catheter (ECC), silicone tube material kit, 24G, VYGON® (Aachen, Germany). All procedures were performed under sterile precautions such as hand washing, use of sterile gloves and gowns, facemask, hair cover, and protective eyewear.
The control group consisted of neonates who underwent a PICC line placement. The method of insertion performed followed the procedure previously described by Pettit. Patients in the intervention group underwent US-IJV. This procedure was carried out as follows: The patient's skin was sterilized with chlorhexidine gluconate and the area was infiltrated with local anesthetic agent (lidocaine). Vascular cannulation was performed using the ECC's winged needle. The target vessel was located via the US dynamic (real-time) method. At the point of needle insertion, the ECC was placed through the needle without guide wire placement. Once the catheter was inserted, a gentle aspiration was performed to show blood flow through the 3 ml syringe that was connected to the ECC. The catheter was then secured and fixed with simple steri-strips and covered by the transparent dressing. Both techniques were performed by two institutional neonatologists who according to their expertise, one performed all PICC line placements while the other performed all US-IJV.
Transducer selection and the axis of visualization are important to consider in the use of US for ECC, as such a linear 6-13 MHz transducer Sonosite M-turbo was used (manufacturer's recommendations). The transverse view shows the vessel under the transducer and the adjacent structures. The tip of the needle is visualized and inserted at a 45° angle. The longitudinal view helps to track the needle progression toward the IJV. Post procedural chest radiography was done for both groups to confirm placement and evaluate for complications.
The primary outcome measured was the pain score difference between Ultrasound inserted central line and peripherally inserted central line. The pain score was measures using the Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale (N -PASS). The N-PASS is based on several criteria: crying / irritability, behavior / state, facial expression, extremities / tone and vital signs. Patient characteristics such as gestational age, age, gender, admission diagnosis, weight have been taken into account and the scores was recorded by the nurse in charge of the baby before and during the procedure. Pain score difference was calculated by subtracting the score during the procedure from the pain score before the procedure.
The secondary outcome measures included the number of first successful attempts, number of total attempts and procedure duration. Additional patient information collected included gender, TPN administration, gestational age, birth weight and diagnosis.
- Conditions
- Central Venous Catheter, Neonates, Pain
- Being tested
- Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion, Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter
- Keywords
- Central Catheter, Central Line, Internal Jugular Vein, Neonate, Peripherally Inserted Central Line, Ultrasound Guided, Pain Score
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter InsertionProcedure or surgery
Peripherally Inserted Central CatheterProcedure or surgery
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Active comparator | Neonates who underwent a peripherally inserted central catheter Receives: Procedure: Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter |
| Intervention Group | Active comparator | Neonates who underwent an Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion Receives: Procedure: Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain score difference
The patient pain score will be assessed prior to the procedure and during. The difference in pain score will be calculated as a representation of the increased pain inflicted by the procedure itself. This difference in pain scores will be compared across the 2 different interventions
Measured: Through study completion, around 7 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
The number of first successful attempts
With each procedure the number of attempts will be registered for each procedure, comparing between the 2 different interventions the number of successful attempts from first trial.
Measured: Through study completion, around 7 months
Number of total attempts
With each procedure the number of attempts will be registered for each procedure, the total number of trials will be compared between the 2 different interventions
Measured: Through study completion, around 7 months
Procedure duration
The procedure duration is the time from the start of the procedure till successful insertion of the central catheter. The total procedural duration will be compared between the 2 different interventions
Measured: Through study completion, around 7 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Aug 2018
- Study startNov 2016
- Primary completionMay 2017
- Study completionMay 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (15)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Central Venous CatheterStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Saint George Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dany Al-Hamod, Saint George Hospital
- Investigators
- Dany Al Hamod, MD, Principal investigator, Saint Georges Hospital University Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03647293
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB/O/036-16/1916
- Status last verified
- Aug 2018
- First submitted
- 15 Aug 2018
- Last updated
- 27 Aug 2018
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Trieschmann U, Cate UT, Sreeram N. Central venous catheters in children and neonates - what is important? Images Paediatr Cardiol. 2007 Oct;9(4):1-8.
PubMed 22368674Cheung E, Baerlocher MO, Asch M, Myers A. Venous access: a practical review for 2009. Can Fam Physician. 2009 May;55(5):494-6. No abstract available.
PubMed 19439704Taylor RW, Palagiri AV. Central venous catheterization. Crit Care Med. 2007 May;35(5):1390-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000260241.80346.1B.
PubMed 17414086Bhatt et al. Indications and complications of central venous catheterization in critically ill children in intensive care unit. National Journal of Medical Research 2012;2:1.85-88.
Kumar A, Chuan A. Ultrasound guided vascular access: efficacy and safety. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009 Sep;23(3):299-311. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2009.02.006.
PubMed 19862889Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, Thomas S. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003 Aug 16;327(7411):361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361.
PubMed 12919984Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med. 1996 Dec;24(12):2053-8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199612000-00020.
PubMed 8968276Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE. Ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous cannulation in infants: a prospective comparison with the traditional palpation method. Anesthesiology. 1999 Jul;91(1):71-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199907000-00013.
PubMed 10422930Goldstein SD, Pryor H, Salazar JH, Dalesio N, Stewart FD, Abdullah F, Colombani P, Lukish JR. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Central Venous Access in Low Birth Weight Infants: Feasibility in the Smallest of Patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015 Sep;25(9):767-9. doi: 10.1089/lap.2014.0308. Epub 2015 Jul 13.
PubMed 26168162Al Hamod DA, Zeidan S, Al Bizri A, Baaklini G, Nassif Y. Ultrasound-guided Central Line Insertion and Standard Peripherally Inserted Catheter Placement in Preterm Infants: Comparing Results from Prospective Study in a Single-center. N Am J Med Sci. 2016 May;8(5):205-9. doi: 10.4103/1947-2714.183011.
PubMed 27298814Pettit J. Technological advances for PICC placement and management. Adv Neonatal Care. 2007 Jun;7(3):122-31. doi: 10.1097/01.anc.0000278210.18639.fd.
PubMed 17844776American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery; Canadian Paediatric Society Fetus and Newborn Committee; Batton DG, Barrington KJ, Wallman C. Prevention and management of pain in the neonate: an update. Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):2231-41. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2277.
PubMed 17079598Costa P, Camargo P, Bueno M, Kimura A. Measuring pain in neonates during placement of central line catheter via peripheral insertion. Acta Paul Enferm 2010;23(1):35-40.
Davidson A, Flick RP. Neurodevelopmental implications of the use of sedation and analgesia in neonates. Clin Perinatol. 2013 Sep;40(3):559-73. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2013.05.009. Epub 2013 Jul 12.
PubMed 23972757Walker SM. Neonatal pain. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Jan;24(1):39-48. doi: 10.1111/pan.12293. Epub 2013 Nov 13.
PubMed 24330444
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 27 Aug 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Ultrasound Guided Central Line Insertion in Neonates: Pain Score Results From a Prospective Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03647293
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB/O/036-16/1916
- Conditions
- Central Venous Catheter, Neonates, Pain
- Keywords
- Central Catheter, Central Line, Internal Jugular Vein, Neonate, Peripherally Inserted Central Line, Ultrasound Guided, Pain Score
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Saint George HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Nov 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- May 2017 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Aug 2018 (actual)
- 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.
Central venous access is an imperative measure used in neonates whether being a peri-operative measure for children undergoing cardiac procedures for congenital heart diseases or as a mean of nutrition in neonatal enteral malnutrition and drug administration in oncology patients. Central catheters fall into two categories, a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line or centrally inserted central catheters (CICC). Although these two modalities practically have the same aim, identifying the more effective technique is imperative for deciding which procedure should be applied to ameliorate patient outcomes. Many studies have been previously done that delineate the indications for central venous access with practically no absolute contraindications. These indications include central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring, poor venous access, volume resuscitation, and prolonged venous access in critically ill patients, total parenteral nutrition (TPN), cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and medication administration. Centrally inserted catheters have evolved from being blindly inserted catheters using landmarks techniques, is the usual standard of care, to being placed under direct visualization using ultrasound guidance. Since its first use back in the 90's, ultrasound guided insertion of central venous catheters has gained attention and successful attempts have been made to improve this technique. US-guidance initially used acoustic Doppler techniques but is now largely replaced by two-dimensional (2D) imaging and internal jugular vein (IJV) being the preferred site of insertion by US over femoral and subclavian vein. Several studies have compared these two techniques. Small-caliber vessels remain a great challenge in the pediatric population which backup the use of imaging modalities for a successful and safer insertion of CVCs.
This study aims to develop a better understanding of pain during central line insertions, compare pain scores between the two techniques in order to adopt the less painful technique and ultimately provide insight about the use of analgesics during these procedures for a better outcome.
Detailed description
A single-center prospective randomized controlled study of neonates (preterm and term babies) who underwent an elective or emergent central line insertion between November 2016 and May 2017 was conducted at SGHUMC Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Hospital's Institutional Review Board approved the study and an informed parental consent was signed for study entry. Inclusion criteria included neonates requiring TPN, antibiotic therapy for at least 7 days, and babies with poor or difficult venous access. Exclusion criteria included refusal to sign consent, patients with previously attempted or placed central lines, and patients who were converted from one technique to the other. Patients were randomized into the control and intervention group through a flip of coin each time a patient enrolled in the study The catheter used for all the patients was an epicutaneo-cava-catheter (ECC), silicone tube material kit, 24G, VYGON® (Aachen, Germany). All procedures were performed under sterile precautions such as hand washing, use of sterile gloves and gowns, facemask, hair cover, and protective eyewear.
The control group consisted of neonates who underwent a PICC line placement. The method of insertion performed followed the procedure previously described by Pettit. Patients in the intervention group underwent US-IJV. This procedure was carried out as follows: The patient's skin was sterilized with chlorhexidine gluconate and the area was infiltrated with local anesthetic agent (lidocaine). Vascular cannulation was performed using the ECC's winged needle. The target vessel was located via the US dynamic (real-time) method. At the point of needle insertion, the ECC was placed through the needle without guide wire placement. Once the catheter was inserted, a gentle aspiration was performed to show blood flow through the 3 ml syringe that was connected to the ECC. The catheter was then secured and fixed with simple steri-strips and covered by the transparent dressing. Both techniques were performed by two institutional neonatologists who according to their expertise, one performed all PICC line placements while the other performed all US-IJV.
Transducer selection and the axis of visualization are important to consider in the use of US for ECC, as such a linear 6-13 MHz transducer Sonosite M-turbo was used (manufacturer's recommendations). The transverse view shows the vessel under the transducer and the adjacent structures. The tip of the needle is visualized and inserted at a 45° angle. The longitudinal view helps to track the needle progression toward the IJV. Post procedural chest radiography was done for both groups to confirm placement and evaluate for complications.
The primary outcome measured was the pain score difference between Ultrasound inserted central line and peripherally inserted central line. The pain score was measures using the Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale (N -PASS). The N-PASS is based on several criteria: crying / irritability, behavior / state, facial expression, extremities / tone and vital signs. Patient characteristics such as gestational age, age, gender, admission diagnosis, weight have been taken into account and the scores was recorded by the nurse in charge of the baby before and during the procedure. Pain score difference was calculated by subtracting the score during the procedure from the pain score before the procedure.
The secondary outcome measures included the number of first successful attempts, number of total attempts and procedure duration. Additional patient information collected included gender, TPN administration, gestational age, birth weight and diagnosis.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Peripherally Inserted Central CatheterNeonates who underwent a peripherally inserted central catheter |
| Intervention Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter InsertionNeonates who underwent an Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- Up to 1 month
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- neonates requiring TPN
- antibiotic therapy for at least 7 days
- babies with poor or difficult venous access
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- refusal to sign consent
- patients with previously attempted or placed central lines
- patients who were converted from one technique to the other
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion | Procedure or surgery | Intervention Group |
| Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter | Procedure or surgery | Control Group |
Primary outcome
Pain score difference
Time frame: Through study completion, around 7 months
The patient pain score will be assessed prior to the procedure and during. The difference in pain score will be calculated as a representation of the increased pain inflicted by the procedure itself. This difference in pain scores will be compared across the 2 different interventions
3 secondary outcomes
The number of first successful attempts
Time frame: Through study completion, around 7 months
Number of total attempts
Time frame: Through study completion, around 7 months
Procedure duration
Time frame: Through study completion, around 7 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 27 Aug 2018.
- Background: PubMed 22368674Trieschmann U, Cate UT, Sreeram N. Central venous catheters in children and neonates - what is important? Images Paediatr Cardiol. 2007 Oct;9(4):1-8.
- Background: PubMed 19439704Cheung E, Baerlocher MO, Asch M, Myers A. Venous access: a practical review for 2009. Can Fam Physician. 2009 May;55(5):494-6. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17414086Taylor RW, Palagiri AV. Central venous catheterization. Crit Care Med. 2007 May;35(5):1390-6. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000260241.80346.1B.
- BackgroundBhatt et al. Indications and complications of central venous catheterization in critically ill children in intensive care unit. National Journal of Medical Research 2012;2:1.85-88.
- Background: PubMed 19862889Kumar A, Chuan A. Ultrasound guided vascular access: efficacy and safety. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009 Sep;23(3):299-311. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2009.02.006.
- Background: PubMed 12919984Hind D, Calvert N, McWilliams R, Davidson A, Paisley S, Beverley C, Thomas S. Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003 Aug 16;327(7411):361. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7411.361.
- Background: PubMed 8968276Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med. 1996 Dec;24(12):2053-8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199612000-00020.
- Background: PubMed 10422930Verghese ST, McGill WA, Patel RI, Sell JE, Midgley FM, Ruttimann UE. Ultrasound-guided internal jugular venous cannulation in infants: a prospective comparison with the traditional palpation method. Anesthesiology. 1999 Jul;91(1):71-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199907000-00013.
- Background: PubMed 26168162Goldstein SD, Pryor H, Salazar JH, Dalesio N, Stewart FD, Abdullah F, Colombani P, Lukish JR. Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Central Venous Access in Low Birth Weight Infants: Feasibility in the Smallest of Patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2015 Sep;25(9):767-9. doi: 10.1089/lap.2014.0308. Epub 2015 Jul 13.
- Background: PubMed 27298814Al Hamod DA, Zeidan S, Al Bizri A, Baaklini G, Nassif Y. Ultrasound-guided Central Line Insertion and Standard Peripherally Inserted Catheter Placement in Preterm Infants: Comparing Results from Prospective Study in a Single-center. N Am J Med Sci. 2016 May;8(5):205-9. doi: 10.4103/1947-2714.183011.
- Background: PubMed 17844776Pettit J. Technological advances for PICC placement and management. Adv Neonatal Care. 2007 Jun;7(3):122-31. doi: 10.1097/01.anc.0000278210.18639.fd.
- Background: PubMed 17079598American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Surgery; Canadian Paediatric Society Fetus and Newborn Committee; Batton DG, Barrington KJ, Wallman C. Prevention and management of pain in the neonate: an update. Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):2231-41. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2277.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Central Venous Catheter
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A Study to Evaluate AZD7760 Safety and Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Adults (Phase I) and Adults With End-stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis With a Central Venous Catheter (Phase IIa)
Staphylococcus Aureus
Active, not recruiting
Repeat Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation, Including Mitral Isthmus Catheter Ablation, With the FARAPULSE Pulsed Field Ablation System
Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
RecruitingObservational study
Frailty and Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheterization Difficulty in Adult Cardiac Surgery Patients
Frailty, Cardiac Surgery
RecruitingObservational study
Impact of a Multi-infusion Strategy in Neonatology on the Rate of Central Line-associated Bloodstream Infections
Neonatal Infection
RecruitingObservational study
Abbott Vascular Medical Device Registry
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Restenoses, Coronary
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.
Dany Al Hamod, MD principal investigator
Saint Georges Hospital University Medical Center
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ultrasound Guided Central Catheter Insertion and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in people with Central Venous Catheter and Neonates, run by Saint George Hospital.
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 3 inclusion and 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 27 Aug 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Pain score difference (time frame: Through study completion, around 7 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03647293, which also lists 15 linked publications.
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 27 Aug 2018.