Catheterization, Peripheral VenousPIVCNCT04218643
Ultrasound-guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion Technique
A study testing Ultrasound-guided technique and Standard technique in people with Catheterization, Peripheral Venous and Phlebitis, run by The Reading Hospital and Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This comparative treatment study aims to challenge a current clinical practice. Specifically, whether the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post insertion failure rates with longer utility time compared to peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) inserted in the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Catheterization, Peripheral Venous, Phlebitis, Infiltration
- What is being tested?
- Ultrasound-guided technique and Standard technique
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 227 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 11 Feb 2020to 1 Oct 2021
- 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 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥ 18
- Identified as requiring a PIVC
- Acceptable vital signs - not requiring emergent resuscitation
Who cannot join
- Patients triaged as MI alert, brain attack alert, and trauma alert
- Pregnant
- Prisoners
- Institutionalized patients
- Housing insecurity
- Unable to provide consent
- Previously entered into the study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Ultrasound-guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion Technique and the Effects on Overall Site Utilization and Failure
This comparative treatment study aims to challenge a current clinical practice. Specifically, whether the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post insertion failure rates with longer utility time compared to peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) inserted in the standard manner during the emergency department (ED), observation and in-patient stay. There are two secondary aims to the study: a) determining if ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post removal complication rates compared to PIVCs inserted in the standard manner; and b) determining if catheter-to-vein ratio can predict post insertion success of PIVCs and what catheter-to-vein ratio is most successful. In this study, catheter-to-vein ratio is defined as the diameter of the lumen of the vein divided by the outside diameter of the catheter.
Read the detailed description
This study is a randomized prospective trial comparing US-guided PIVC insertion with standard PIVC insertion technique. This study will evaluate the predictive strength of catheter-to-vein ratio to PIVC post insertion success.
The study population is all patients presenting to the ED. The sample population will be patients requiring a PIVC for treatment or diagnostic purposes and don't have an existing PIVC (EMS or other). Inclusion and exclusion criteria focusing on most suitable participants and safety will determine the participant population. Participants will be randomized to one of two cohorts; 1) PIVC insertion based on standard technique and 2) US-guided PIVC insertion.
There will be two data collection phases in this study:
Phase one occurs in the emergency department (ED). ED staff will be notified of the study period, however to minimize bias, details of the study will not be given. Patients in this phase include those registered in the ED seeking treatment. To identify potential candidates, the investigator will perform an initial screening by communicating with ED staff. Initial screenings will be recorded without using any identifying data. When a potential participant is identified, the investigator will then coordinate with ED staff, approach the candidate and confirm that they meet inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the patient qualifies for enrollment, the investigator will review the study purpose including risks and benefits of enrolling, and have the patient sign the consent form. Randomization will occur after obtaining consent. Patients will have a PIVC inserted by any qualified Nurse or Medic. The PIVC will be placed according to the Reading Hospital Peripheral Intravenous Therapy for Adults guideline. After the PIVC (Standard or US-guided) is inserted, the investigator will then measure the vein prior to any infusion that could distort vein measurement.
All investigators involved with vein measurement will complete vein measurement training. The vein size will be measured using one of the following US machines: SonoSite Edge II or X-Porte each equipped with a 13-6 MHz, 6 cm linear probe (FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. Bothell, WA, USA). The investigator will then record collected data on the phase one data collection form and place the form in a secure container. A member of the research team will then collect the completed data collection forms and enter the data in a secured study database. To limit bias, investigators will not inform the ED staff of the specifics of this study and will only provide enough information for data to be collected safely and accurately. In the event that a PIVC could not be successfully inserted according to the randomized technique, the PIVC will be analyzed in an intention to treat (ITT) format and the participant will receive vascular access as per the treatment team.
Phase two of data collection is divided into two parts, and participants in this phase include those that had a PIVC inserted by either randomized method and were subsequently placed in an observation status, inpatient status or discharged home. Phase two part one occurs after the PIVC has been removed. Data collection is performed electronically and may also involve verbal follow up. Trained investigators will obtain an active list of subjects whose PIVC was removed. Each subject will have a blank phase two part one data collection form completed in its entirety when possible. Subjects who remain on an inpatient or observation status will be followed in the electronic health record (EHR). In this study post insertion failure is identified when any of the following reasons for PIVC removal has been entered into the participants EHR: leakage, drainage, phlebitis, painful, occluded, infiltrated, and catheter damage. If more than one of these reasons has been entered, the investigator will further investigate the EHR to determine the primary reason for removal. If electronic data is not sufficient and the subject is still hospitalized, the investigator will attempt to visit the subject for completion of data collection. Completed phase two part one forms will be placed in a secure container until entry into the study database. Following data entry, paper forms involved in this part will be destroyed. Subjects with a PIVC that was removed for a reason not determined as a failure will proceed into phase two part two.
Phase two part two occurs when a PIVC was removed without complication. A trained investigator will obtain a list of subjects whose PIVC was removed without complication. The investigator will determine if 48 hours has passed since the removal of the PIVC. If so, a post removal follow-up interview is performed if the patient is still admitted in the hospital or a phone interview is conducted if the patient was discharged home. Participant charts will also be reviewed for any subsequent ED or primary care physician visits related to PIVC complication(s). The investigator completes the phase two part two data collection form and places it in a secured container. A time limit of 48 hours to contact the participant has been set for this study. A member of the research team will then collect the data collection forms and enter the data in the secured study database.
Statistics and data analysis
Sample size calculation:
The baseline failure rate for post-insertion PIVCs at Reading Hospital is 30%. Our study has set an a priori improvement of an absolute percentage change of 10% as significant. Using a single tail change in improvement (alpha = 0.025) with the intervention with an 80% power, we calculated the number needed for each cohort to be 291 subjects, however we will randomize for 360 in each cohort for a total of 720 subjects to allow for attrition.
Randomization:
Using the statistical package 'R', a series of random numbers will be generated to allocate individual patients to groups. This random number series will be validated for randomness using the 'runs test' available in SPSS. A conservative P value of 0.50 will be used to determine if the sequence of numbers is random. Randomization will continue until a sequence with a p-value greater than 0.50 is obtained. Once completed, the random number sequence will be saved to an Excel file and passed to Reading Hospital researchers for processing.
Data analysis:
Data analysis will occur in two separate phases. First descriptive analysis for all variables for patients within each group. For this analysis discrete variables will be reported as count, and percent within each category. For continuous variables statistics will include mean, minimum and maximum values, standard deviation and median. Significance testing will be conducted between groups. Discrete variables will use chi-square test and continuous variables will use group or independent t-test. An a priori p-value of 0.050 will determine statistical significance between groups.
The second phase of this analysis will include inferential statistics on the comparison between groups for both primary and secondary outcomes.
The primary outcomes to be compared between the PIVC insertion techniques include:
- Failure rate (overall and individual cause/reason).
- Utility time
- Catheter-to-vein ratio
For the analysis of failure rate chi-square analysis will be used between the two groups. Utility time will be analyzed by group t-test. Catheter to vein ratio will be aggregated among all patients within group and a rate analysis defined by Fleiss will be used to determine if the ratios between treatment cohorts are significantly different. A standard p-value of 0.05 will be used for these analyses.
The secondary outcomes will be:
- Describe post removal complication rates among traditional and US-guided PIVC insertion techniques
- Identifying a catheter-to-vein ratio that predicts complication
The complication rate will be analyzed by standard rate analysis by Fleiss. Complication rates will be calculated as the number of complication divided by the number of patients.
In order to determine the catheter to vein ratio that may predict a complication, both groups will be added together in aggregate, and a ROC curve will be calculated using the catheter to vein ratio as the independent variable and the complication (0, 1) as the dependent variable. Standard methodology to determine the cutoff point will be used, (diagonal line drawn to ROC curve then projected down to sensitivity value) to determine the cutoff point. Standard ROC descriptive statistics will be used including area under the curve, standard error of the area, 95% confidence interval of the area, p-value as well as sensitivity and specificity of the cutoff value. The null hypothesis for the ROC curve will be area is equal to 0.50.
Due to the exploratory nature of these analysis there will be no corrections for multiple comparisons.
- Conditions
- Catheterization, Peripheral Venous, Phlebitis, Infiltration
- Being tested
- Ultrasound-guided technique, Standard technique
- Keywords
- peripheral intravenous catheter, ultrasound-guided, IV insertion, catheter to vein ratio
- Medical subject headings
- Phlebitis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ultrasound-guided techniqueOther
IV inserted via ultrasound guidance
Standard techniqueOther
IV inserted via standard technique
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard technique | Active comparator | Intravenous catheter inserted via standard technique Receives: Other: Standard technique |
| Ultrasound-guided technique | Experimental | Intravenous catheter inserted via ultrasound guidance Receives: Other: Ultrasound-guided technique |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Post insertion failure rates
Failure rate (overall and individual cause/reason)
Measured: Duration of catheter dwell time (up to 168 hours)
Overall utility
The overall dwell time of the catheter
Measured: Up to 168 hours (1 week)
Secondary outcomes (2)
Post removal complication rates
Determining if ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post removal complication rates compared to PIVCs inserted in the standard manner.
Measured: 48 hours after catheter removal
Catheter to vein ratio
Determining if catheter-to-vein ratio can predict post insertion success of PIVCs and what catheter-to-vein ratio is most successful. In this study, catheter-to-vein ratio is defined as the diameter of the lumen of the vein divided by the outside diameter of the catheter.
Measured: Up to 168 hours (1 week)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Jan 2020
- Study start11 Feb 2020
- Primary completion1 Oct 2021
- Study completion1 Oct 2021
Why it stopped: Enrollment too difficult due to lost staff after COVID
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Catheterization, Peripheral VenousStudies 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomized prospective trial comparing US-guided PIVC insertion with standard PIVC insertion technique
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 227 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Reading Hospital and Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Scott Leroux, BS NRP, Principal investigator, Reading Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04218643
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB 042-19
- Acronym
- PIVC
- Status last verified
- Nov 2021
- First submitted
- 7 Nov 2019
- Last updated
- 30 Mar 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Braga LM, Parreira PM, Oliveira ASS, Monico LDSM, Arreguy-Sena C, Henriques MA. Phlebitis and infiltration: vascular trauma associated with the peripheral venous catheter. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2018;26:e3002. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.2377.3002. Epub 2018 May 17.
PubMed 29791668Helm RE, Klausner JD, Klemperer JD, Flint LM, Huang E. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure. J Infus Nurs. 2015 May-Jun;38(3):189-203. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000100.
PubMed 25871866Marsh N, Webster J, Larson E, Cooke M, Mihala G, Rickard CM. Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure. J Hosp Med. 2018 Feb 1;13(2):83-89. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2867. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
PubMed 29073316Murayama R, Uchida M, Oe M, Takahashi T, Oya M, Komiyama C, Sanada H. Removal of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Due to Catheter Failures Among Adult Patients. J Infus Nurs. 2017 Jul/Aug;40(4):224-231. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000168.
PubMed 28683001Miliani K, Taravella R, Thillard D, Chauvin V, Martin E, Edouard S, Astagneau P; CATHEVAL Study Group. Peripheral Venous Catheter-Related Adverse Events: Evaluation from a Multicentre Epidemiological Study in France (the CATHEVAL Project). PLoS One. 2017 Jan 3;12(1):e0168637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168637. eCollection 2017.
PubMed 28045921Yabunaka K, Murayama R, Tanabe H, et al. Ultrasonographic classification of subcutaneous edema caused by infusion via peripheral intravenous catheter. Journal of Medical Ultrasound. 2016;24(2):60-5. doi: org/10.1016/j.jmu.2016.02.001
Costantino TG, Parikh AK, Satz WA, Fojtik JP. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Nov;46(5):456-61. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.026.
PubMed 16271677Stolz LA, Stolz U, Howe C, Farrell IJ, Adhikari S. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access. 2015 Jul-Aug;16(4):321-6. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000346. Epub 2015 Feb 4.
PubMed 25656255Tanabe H, Takahashi T, Murayama R, Yabunaka K, Oe M, Matsui Y, Arai R, Uchida M, Komiyama C, Sanada H. Using Ultrasonography for Vessel Diameter Assessment to Prevent Infiltration. J Infus Nurs. 2016 Mar-Apr;39(2):105-11. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000159.
PubMed 26934164Spencer TR, Mahoney KJ. Reducing catheter-related thrombosis using a risk reduction tool centered on catheter to vessel ratio. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017 Nov;44(4):427-434. doi: 10.1007/s11239-017-1569-y.
PubMed 29022210Nifong TP, McDevitt TJ. The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest. 2011 Jul;140(1):48-53. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-2637. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
PubMed 21349931Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
PubMed 18929686Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, Duda SN; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. Epub 2019 May 9.
PubMed 31078660Tada M, Yamada N, Matsumoto T, Takeda C, Furukawa TA, Watanabe N. Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 12;12(12):CD013434. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013434.pub2.
PubMed 36507736
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Mar 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Ultrasound-guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion Technique and the Effects on Overall Site Utilization and Failure
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04218643
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PIVC / IRB 042-19
- Conditions
- Catheterization, Peripheral Venous, Phlebitis, Infiltration
- Keywords
- peripheral intravenous catheter, ultrasound-guided, IV insertion, catheter to vein ratio
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: Enrollment too difficult due to lost staff after COVID
- Enrolment
- 227 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Reading Hospital and Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 11 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Jan 2020 (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.
This comparative treatment study aims to challenge a current clinical practice. Specifically, whether the use of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post insertion failure rates with longer utility time compared to peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) inserted in the standard manner during the emergency department (ED), observation and in-patient stay. There are two secondary aims to the study: a) determining if ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion results in lower post removal complication rates compared to PIVCs inserted in the standard manner; and b) determining if catheter-to-vein ratio can predict post insertion success of PIVCs and what catheter-to-vein ratio is most successful. In this study, catheter-to-vein ratio is defined as the diameter of the lumen of the vein divided by the outside diameter of the catheter.
Detailed description
This study is a randomized prospective trial comparing US-guided PIVC insertion with standard PIVC insertion technique. This study will evaluate the predictive strength of catheter-to-vein ratio to PIVC post insertion success.
The study population is all patients presenting to the ED. The sample population will be patients requiring a PIVC for treatment or diagnostic purposes and don't have an existing PIVC (EMS or other). Inclusion and exclusion criteria focusing on most suitable participants and safety will determine the participant population. Participants will be randomized to one of two cohorts; 1) PIVC insertion based on standard technique and 2) US-guided PIVC insertion.
There will be two data collection phases in this study:
Phase one occurs in the emergency department (ED). ED staff will be notified of the study period, however to minimize bias, details of the study will not be given. Patients in this phase include those registered in the ED seeking treatment. To identify potential candidates, the investigator will perform an initial screening by communicating with ED staff. Initial screenings will be recorded without using any identifying data. When a potential participant is identified, the investigator will then coordinate with ED staff, approach the candidate and confirm that they meet inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the patient qualifies for enrollment, the investigator will review the study purpose including risks and benefits of enrolling, and have the patient sign the consent form. Randomization will occur after obtaining consent. Patients will have a PIVC inserted by any qualified Nurse or Medic. The PIVC will be placed according to the Reading Hospital Peripheral Intravenous Therapy for Adults guideline. After the PIVC (Standard or US-guided) is inserted, the investigator will then measure the vein prior to any infusion that could distort vein measurement.
All investigators involved with vein measurement will complete vein measurement training. The vein size will be measured using one of the following US machines: SonoSite Edge II or X-Porte each equipped with a 13-6 MHz, 6 cm linear probe (FUJIFILM SonoSite, Inc. Bothell, WA, USA). The investigator will then record collected data on the phase one data collection form and place the form in a secure container. A member of the research team will then collect the completed data collection forms and enter the data in a secured study database. To limit bias, investigators will not inform the ED staff of the specifics of this study and will only provide enough information for data to be collected safely and accurately. In the event that a PIVC could not be successfully inserted according to the randomized technique, the PIVC will be analyzed in an intention to treat (ITT) format and the participant will receive vascular access as per the treatment team.
Phase two of data collection is divided into two parts, and participants in this phase include those that had a PIVC inserted by either randomized method and were subsequently placed in an observation status, inpatient status or discharged home. Phase two part one occurs after the PIVC has been removed. Data collection is performed electronically and may also involve verbal follow up. Trained investigators will obtain an active list of subjects whose PIVC was removed. Each subject will have a blank phase two part one data collection form completed in its entirety when possible. Subjects who remain on an inpatient or observation status will be followed in the electronic health record (EHR). In this study post insertion failure is identified when any of the following reasons for PIVC removal has been entered into the participants EHR: leakage, drainage, phlebitis, painful, occluded, infiltrated, and catheter damage. If more than one of these reasons has been entered, the investigator will further investigate the EHR to determine the primary reason for removal. If electronic data is not sufficient and the subject is still hospitalized, the investigator will attempt to visit the subject for completion of data collection. Completed phase two part one forms will be placed in a secure container until entry into the study database. Following data entry, paper forms involved in this part will be destroyed. Subjects with a PIVC that was removed for a reason not determined as a failure will proceed into phase two part two.
Phase two part two occurs when a PIVC was removed without complication. A trained investigator will obtain a list of subjects whose PIVC was removed without complication. The investigator will determine if 48 hours has passed since the removal of the PIVC. If so, a post removal follow-up interview is performed if the patient is still admitted in the hospital or a phone interview is conducted if the patient was discharged home. Participant charts will also be reviewed for any subsequent ED or primary care physician visits related to PIVC complication(s). The investigator completes the phase two part two data collection form and places it in a secured container. A time limit of 48 hours to contact the participant has been set for this study. A member of the research team will then collect the data collection forms and enter the data in the secured study database.
Statistics and data analysis
Sample size calculation:
The baseline failure rate for post-insertion PIVCs at Reading Hospital is 30%. Our study has set an a priori improvement of an absolute percentage change of 10% as significant. Using a single tail change in improvement (alpha = 0.025) with the intervention with an 80% power, we calculated the number needed for each cohort to be 291 subjects, however we will randomize for 360 in each cohort for a total of 720 subjects to allow for attrition.
Randomization:
Using the statistical package 'R', a series of random numbers will be generated to allocate individual patients to groups. This random number series will be validated for randomness using the 'runs test' available in SPSS. A conservative P value of 0.50 will be used to determine if the sequence of numbers is random. Randomization will continue until a sequence with a p-value greater than 0.50 is obtained. Once completed, the random number sequence will be saved to an Excel file and passed to Reading Hospital researchers for processing.
Data analysis:
Data analysis will occur in two separate phases. First descriptive analysis for all variables for patients within each group. For this analysis discrete variables will be reported as count, and percent within each category. For continuous variables statistics will include mean, minimum and maximum values, standard deviation and median. Significance testing will be conducted between groups. Discrete variables will use chi-square test and continuous variables will use group or independent t-test. An a priori p-value of 0.050 will determine statistical significance between groups.
The second phase of this analysis will include inferential statistics on the comparison between groups for both primary and secondary outcomes.
The primary outcomes to be compared between the PIVC insertion techniques include:
- Failure rate (overall and individual cause/reason).
- Utility time
- Catheter-to-vein ratio
For the analysis of failure rate chi-square analysis will be used between the two groups. Utility time will be analyzed by group t-test. Catheter to vein ratio will be aggregated among all patients within group and a rate analysis defined by Fleiss will be used to determine if the ratios between treatment cohorts are significantly different. A standard p-value of 0.05 will be used for these analyses.
The secondary outcomes will be:
- Describe post removal complication rates among traditional and US-guided PIVC insertion techniques
- Identifying a catheter-to-vein ratio that predicts complication
The complication rate will be analyzed by standard rate analysis by Fleiss. Complication rates will be calculated as the number of complication divided by the number of patients.
In order to determine the catheter to vein ratio that may predict a complication, both groups will be added together in aggregate, and a ROC curve will be calculated using the catheter to vein ratio as the independent variable and the complication (0, 1) as the dependent variable. Standard methodology to determine the cutoff point will be used, (diagonal line drawn to ROC curve then projected down to sensitivity value) to determine the cutoff point. Standard ROC descriptive statistics will be used including area under the curve, standard error of the area, 95% confidence interval of the area, p-value as well as sensitivity and specificity of the cutoff value. The null hypothesis for the ROC curve will be area is equal to 0.50.
Due to the exploratory nature of these analysis there will be no corrections for multiple comparisons.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized prospective trial comparing US-guided PIVC insertion with standard PIVC insertion technique
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard technique | Active comparator | Other: Standard techniqueIntravenous catheter inserted via standard technique |
| Ultrasound-guided technique | Experimental | Other: Ultrasound-guided techniqueIntravenous catheter inserted via ultrasound guidance |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age ≥ 18
- Identified as requiring a PIVC
- Acceptable vital signs - not requiring emergent resuscitation
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Patients triaged as MI alert, brain attack alert, and trauma alert
- Pregnant
- Prisoners
- Institutionalized patients
- Housing insecurity
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 techniqueIV inserted via ultrasound guidance | Other | Ultrasound-guided technique |
| Standard techniqueIV inserted via standard technique | Other | Standard technique |
Primary outcome
Post insertion failure rates
Time frame: Duration of catheter dwell time (up to 168 hours)
Failure rate (overall and individual cause/reason)
Overall utility
Time frame: Up to 168 hours (1 week)
The overall dwell time of the catheter
2 secondary outcomes
Post removal complication rates
Time frame: 48 hours after catheter removal
Catheter to vein ratio
Time frame: Up to 168 hours (1 week)
Results and safety
The study was stopped early (reason given: Enrollment too difficult due to lost staff after COVID). Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Mar 2023.
- Background: PubMed 29791668Braga LM, Parreira PM, Oliveira ASS, Monico LDSM, Arreguy-Sena C, Henriques MA. Phlebitis and infiltration: vascular trauma associated with the peripheral venous catheter. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2018;26:e3002. doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.2377.3002. Epub 2018 May 17.
- Background: PubMed 25871866Helm RE, Klausner JD, Klemperer JD, Flint LM, Huang E. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure. J Infus Nurs. 2015 May-Jun;38(3):189-203. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000100.
- Background: PubMed 29073316Marsh N, Webster J, Larson E, Cooke M, Mihala G, Rickard CM. Observational Study of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Outcomes in Adult Hospitalized Patients: A Multivariable Analysis of Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Failure. J Hosp Med. 2018 Feb 1;13(2):83-89. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2867. Epub 2017 Oct 18.
- Background: PubMed 28683001Murayama R, Uchida M, Oe M, Takahashi T, Oya M, Komiyama C, Sanada H. Removal of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Due to Catheter Failures Among Adult Patients. J Infus Nurs. 2017 Jul/Aug;40(4):224-231. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000168.
- Background: PubMed 28045921Miliani K, Taravella R, Thillard D, Chauvin V, Martin E, Edouard S, Astagneau P; CATHEVAL Study Group. Peripheral Venous Catheter-Related Adverse Events: Evaluation from a Multicentre Epidemiological Study in France (the CATHEVAL Project). PLoS One. 2017 Jan 3;12(1):e0168637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168637. eCollection 2017.
- BackgroundYabunaka K, Murayama R, Tanabe H, et al. Ultrasonographic classification of subcutaneous edema caused by infusion via peripheral intravenous catheter. Journal of Medical Ultrasound. 2016;24(2):60-5. doi: org/10.1016/j.jmu.2016.02.001
- Background: PubMed 16271677Costantino TG, Parikh AK, Satz WA, Fojtik JP. Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access. Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Nov;46(5):456-61. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.026.
- Background: PubMed 25656255Stolz LA, Stolz U, Howe C, Farrell IJ, Adhikari S. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Vasc Access. 2015 Jul-Aug;16(4):321-6. doi: 10.5301/jva.5000346. Epub 2015 Feb 4.
- Background: PubMed 26934164Tanabe H, Takahashi T, Murayama R, Yabunaka K, Oe M, Matsui Y, Arai R, Uchida M, Komiyama C, Sanada H. Using Ultrasonography for Vessel Diameter Assessment to Prevent Infiltration. J Infus Nurs. 2016 Mar-Apr;39(2):105-11. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000159.
- Background: PubMed 29022210Spencer TR, Mahoney KJ. Reducing catheter-related thrombosis using a risk reduction tool centered on catheter to vessel ratio. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017 Nov;44(4):427-434. doi: 10.1007/s11239-017-1569-y.
- Background: PubMed 21349931Nifong TP, McDevitt TJ. The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest. 2011 Jul;140(1):48-53. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-2637. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
- Background: PubMed 18929686Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Catheterization, Peripheral Venous
Enrolling by invitation
TruVascular Access - Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access Study
Peripheral Venous Catheterization, Difficult Intravenous Access
Not yet recruiting
Near-Infrared Light for Peripheral Venous Catheterization in Adults With Difficult Venous Access
Difficult Venous Access
Recruiting
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Ultrasound-guided Techniques and Infrared Illumination, Compared With the Standard Approach to Peripheral Venous Line Placement in People With Difficult Venous Access
Peripheral Venous Catheterization
Recruiting
Single Lumen Midline Catheter vs Ultrasound Guided Peripheral IV as Performed by Bedside Emergency Department Registered Nurses
Difficult Vein Access, Emergency Department Patients
Recruiting
Evaluation of Proximal Massage and Palm-to-Fist Tapping on Reducing the Risk of Phlebitis
Phlebitis, Catheter Complications
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.
Scott Leroux, BS NRP principal investigator
Reading Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Ultrasound-guided technique and Standard technique in people with Catheterization, Peripheral Venous and Phlebitis, run by The Reading Hospital and Medical Center 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 3 inclusion and 7 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: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Mar 2023. 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.
Are results available for this study?
The study was stopped early (reason given: Enrollment too difficult due to lost staff after COVID). Results are not available in the source record.
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?
Post insertion failure rates (time frame: Duration of catheter dwell time (up to 168 hours)). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT04218643, which also lists 14 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 30 Mar 2023.