Peripheral Venous CatheterED-Cath 2NCT07449455
Assessing the Effect of Staff Education on Unused Peripheral Venous Catheter Rates in Emergency Departments.
An observational study of Peripheral Venous Catheter, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a common procedure, estimated at 25 million per year in France according to SF2H in 2005. However, this procedure exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Peripheral Venous Catheter
- What is being tested?
- Medical staff educational intervention
- How many people
- 516 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 22 Nov 2024to 17 Jan 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- 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
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: All patients presenting to the emergency department of Saint-Antoine Hospital during the study period on weekdays (from 8 am to 6 pm, Monday to Friday).
Who may be able to join
- Patients ≥ 18 years old
- Prescription and placement of a PVC and/or blood sample collection without PVC placement during the emergency department stay
- Patient non-opposition to the use of care data, collected by the investigating physician after informing the patient
Who cannot join
- Patient information impossible (language barrier, neuro-cognitive impairment…)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Evaluation of the Impact of an Educational Intervention for Staff on the Rate of Peripheral Venous Catheters Inserted and Unused in Emergency Departments.
The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a common procedure, estimated at 25 million per year in France according to SF2H in 2005. However, this procedure exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly. There is a significant proportion of PVCs placed unnecessarily, estimated between 23.7% and 60.7% according to studies. A study conducted at the Saint-Antoine Emergency Department showed that the best indicator of non-use of PVCs is the physician's prediction of non-utilization.
The investigators expect to achieve a significant reduction in unused PVCs after the intervention, thereby reducing adverse effects associated with PVC placement, freeing up paramedical time, and having a positive ecological and economic impact.
Read the detailed description
The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a common practice in various hospital departments in France. It is estimated at 25 million per year in France according to the French Society for Hospital Hygiene (SFHH) in 2005.
According to Gledstone-Brown et al., the prescription of catheters "just in case" has been a longstanding practice in emergency departments (ED), initially motivated to improve patient safety. The recurring issue was the need for an emergency catheter placement once the patient was admitted to a hospital ward. Additionally, the hypothesis that an easily insertable catheter, performed concurrently with a blood draw, could facilitate future assessments or intravenous medication administration seemed appealing.
As a result, a significant proportion of catheters are unnecessarily placed, ranging from 23.7% to 60.7% according to studies. Limm et al. conducted a retrospective study in 2013 focusing on PVCs placed in an Australian ED. Emergency reports of all adult patients with a PVC were reviewed, excluding those with life-threatening emergencies or those with a pre-existing PVC upon arrival. A PVC was considered unused if it was not employed for fluid administration, medication, or contrast product. Out of 3829 patients admitted to the ED over 30 days, 570 (14.9%) received a PVC, of which 284 (49.8% [95% CI, 45.6-54.0%]) remained unused. Neurological or gynecological-obstetric consultation reasons were associated with non-utilization of PVC (OR 2.3 [95% CI, 0.69-3.8] and 2.1 [95% CI, 0.99-40.2], respectively), contrasting with gastrointestinal or respiratory difficulty consultations. A similar study by Craigie et al. in Canada in 2017 found that 48% of PVCs were unused, with orthopedic, cardiovascular, and hematology consultations being associated with non-utilization. Other studies, such as Salvetti et al.'s in Italy and Vandenbos et al.'s in Nice in 2000, reported percentages of unused PVCs at 60.7% and 33.8%, respectively.
Lewindon rightly emphasizes the need for more precise data on PVC placements in EDs to identify patients who do not require them. In 2018, Guilhard et al. conducted a prospective descriptive study focusing on PVC placements in the ED of the University Hospital of Saint-Denis in La Réunion, using a methodology similar to the aforementioned studies. Out of 605 included patients in the study month, 207 (34.2%) had a PVC placed, with 57% remaining unused. The study also highlighted intravenous prescriptions for medications with oral alternatives, including Paracetamol (51%), Ketoprofen (15%), Tramadol (13%), and Phloroglucinol (10%). Additionally, 142 out of 185 (77%) patients hospitalized from the ED had a PVC. However, Mailhe et al. showed in 2020 that 60.5% of them had their PVC removed within 24 hours of admission. This prospective study included 614 patients hospitalized from the ED to the infectious diseases department of the hospital-university institute of Marseille over six months. Results indicated that 509 (82.9%) arrived with a PVC, 260 (51.5%) were deemed unnecessary from the start, and 308 (60.5%) were removed within 24 hours. These findings align with those of Lederle et al. in 1992, who reported that, among 484 patients with a PVC, 168 (35% [95% CI, 31-39%]) had their catheter unused for at least 48 hours in a prospective study spanning six weeks in four hospital wards in the United States.
Catheter placement is time-consuming for nursing teams and uncomfortable for patients. Couteaux et al. demonstrated in 2008, through a one-day cross-sectional analysis in two hospitals of the Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), that vascular punctures (especially venous) were the leading cause of pain among hospitalized patients, with 38% of 671 painful events associated with this procedure. Catheter placement exposes patients to various adverse effects analyzed by Miliani et al. this multicenter prospective observational study (one surgical department and four medical departments in three hospitals in northern France) conducted between June 2013 and June 2014 analyzed the occurrence of adverse effects after PVC placement and up to 48 hours after removal. Among the 815 PVCs analyzed, 164 phlebitis (20.1% [95% CI, 17.4-23.0%]), including 34 manifest ones (grade ≥3 according to Maddox classification, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.9-5.8%]), 144 hematomas at the puncture site (17.7% [95% CI, 15.1-20.5%]), 107 fluid leaks (13.1% [95% CI, 10.9-15.6%]), 31 edemas (3.8% [95% CI, 2.6-5.4%]), and 3 suspicions of catheter-related sepsis (0.4% [95% CI, 0.1-1.1%]) were noted. Finally, a literature review showed that samples taken from a catheter are more often hemolyzed (3.3% to 77% according to studies) than those obtained directly by venous puncture (0% to 3.8%).
This observation led to a study at the Saint-Antoine Hospital ED (APHP) in 2022 aiming to analyze the rate of PVC utilization in emergencies and identify predictive factors for non-utilization. The study revealed that 23.7% of prescribed PVCs were not used, with non-utilization factors being the prescriber's expectation of usage (OR=6.35 [95% CI, 2.64-15.29], p<0.001) and the prescription motive "if needed" (OR=3.54 [95% CI, 1.37-9.17], p=0.009). These results suggest that a PVC should not be prescribed if the prescriber does not anticipate its use (whether convinced of its non-utilization or uncertain) or if it is prescribed on an "if needed" basis to avoid adverse effects associated with PVC prescription. The Saint-Antoine ED decided to implement these prescription rules, along with a staff training strategy, which will be evaluated as part of this project.
A reasoned prescription of PVCs in the ED, based on a prescription rule considering the anticipation of use and the prescription motive, would lead to a reduction in unused PVC prescriptions while maintaining patient safety. Our primary objective is to assess the impact of an educational intervention for medical and paramedical teams on the rate of PVCs placed and unused in the ED based on care data.
Staff training aims to enforce prescription recommendations in patient care and will involve multiple informational meetings with medical and paramedical teams, sending emails, and posting posters in various emergency care stations. The study will communicate the literature analysis conclusions regarding the relevance of PVC prescription in the ED, particularly the results of the 2022 ED-cath study in the department: PVC placement exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly; 23.7% to 60% of PVCs placed in the ED are not used, and non-utilization is associated with the prescriber's anticipation of non-utilization and the prescription motive "if needed." Furthermore, 24.1% of used PVCs are exclusively for first or second-tier analgesics that have an oral alternative. Therefore, physicians are advised not to prescribe PVCs if they do not expect them to be used and to maximize oral analgesics.
The secondary objectives include assessing the estimated number of PVCs not placed due to the intervention, the number of PVC placements and blood samples taken subsequently (in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed), the number of blood samples taken by direct venipuncture during initial patient management, the rate of orally administered analgesics, and the rate of hemolyzed blood samples according to the sampling technique (PVC placement or direct venipuncture).
The investigator anticipate a significant reduction in unused PVCs after the intervention, aiming to reduce adverse effects related to PVC placement, free up paramedical time, and have a positive ecological and economic impact.
- Conditions
- Peripheral Venous Catheter
- Being tested
- Medical staff educational intervention
- Keywords
- appropriateness, Catheter, Emergency department, Evaluation, Utilization
- Medical subject headings
- Emergencies, Patient Acceptance of Health Care
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Medical staff educational interventionOther
The staff training aims to enforce prescription recommendations in patient care and will involve multiple informational meetings with medical and paramedical teams, sending emails, and posting posters in various emergency care stations.
The conclusions of the literature analysis regarding the relevance of prescribing PVCs in the ED will be communicated, notably the results of the ED-cath study conducted in 2022 in the department: PVC placement exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly; it has been shown that 23.7% to 60% of PVCs placed in the ED are not used, and non-utilization of the PVC is associated with the prescriber's anticipation of non-utilization and the prescription motive "if needed."
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | Not described | |
| After intervention | Not described Receives: Other: Medical staff educational intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
rate of non-utilization of prescribed and placed PVCs in the emergency department during the emergency stay, before and after an educational intervention
A PVC is considered used if the patient has received intravenous therapy (medication, filling solution, or contrast agent) or if a new blood sample has been taken remotely from the catheter placement (while the patient is still being managed in the ED).
Measured: 2 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
The estimated number of PVCs not placed due to the intervention in the post-intervention phase (the delta between the number of PVCs placed in each phase, relative to the number of visits to the ED).
Measured: 2 months
The rate of PVC placements performed subsequently in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed.
Measured: 2 months
The rate of blood samples taken subsequently in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed.
Measured: 2 months
The rate of blood samples taken by direct venipuncture during the initial patient management.
Measured: 2 months
The rate of orally administered analgesics.
Measured: 2 months
The rate of hemolyzed blood samples based on the sampling technique (PVC placement or direct venipuncture).
Measured: 2 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Mar 2026
- Study start22 Nov 2024
- Primary completion17 Jan 2025
- Study completion17 Jan 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Peripheral Venous CatheterStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 516 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07449455
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- APHP240397
- Acronym
- ED-Cath 2
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 27 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 11 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of the Impact of an Educational Intervention for Staff on the Rate of Peripheral Venous Catheters Inserted and Unused in Emergency Departments.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07449455
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ED-Cath 2 / APHP240397
- Conditions
- Peripheral Venous Catheter
- Keywords
- appropriateness, Catheter, Emergency department, Evaluation, Utilization
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 516 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 22 Nov 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Jan 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 17 Jan 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Mar 2026 (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.
The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a common procedure, estimated at 25 million per year in France according to SF2H in 2005. However, this procedure exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly. There is a significant proportion of PVCs placed unnecessarily, estimated between 23.7% and 60.7% according to studies. A study conducted at the Saint-Antoine Emergency Department showed that the best indicator of non-use of PVCs is the physician's prediction of non-utilization.
The investigators expect to achieve a significant reduction in unused PVCs after the intervention, thereby reducing adverse effects associated with PVC placement, freeing up paramedical time, and having a positive ecological and economic impact.
Detailed description
The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a common practice in various hospital departments in France. It is estimated at 25 million per year in France according to the French Society for Hospital Hygiene (SFHH) in 2005.
According to Gledstone-Brown et al., the prescription of catheters "just in case" has been a longstanding practice in emergency departments (ED), initially motivated to improve patient safety. The recurring issue was the need for an emergency catheter placement once the patient was admitted to a hospital ward. Additionally, the hypothesis that an easily insertable catheter, performed concurrently with a blood draw, could facilitate future assessments or intravenous medication administration seemed appealing.
As a result, a significant proportion of catheters are unnecessarily placed, ranging from 23.7% to 60.7% according to studies. Limm et al. conducted a retrospective study in 2013 focusing on PVCs placed in an Australian ED. Emergency reports of all adult patients with a PVC were reviewed, excluding those with life-threatening emergencies or those with a pre-existing PVC upon arrival. A PVC was considered unused if it was not employed for fluid administration, medication, or contrast product. Out of 3829 patients admitted to the ED over 30 days, 570 (14.9%) received a PVC, of which 284 (49.8% [95% CI, 45.6-54.0%]) remained unused. Neurological or gynecological-obstetric consultation reasons were associated with non-utilization of PVC (OR 2.3 [95% CI, 0.69-3.8] and 2.1 [95% CI, 0.99-40.2], respectively), contrasting with gastrointestinal or respiratory difficulty consultations. A similar study by Craigie et al. in Canada in 2017 found that 48% of PVCs were unused, with orthopedic, cardiovascular, and hematology consultations being associated with non-utilization. Other studies, such as Salvetti et al.'s in Italy and Vandenbos et al.'s in Nice in 2000, reported percentages of unused PVCs at 60.7% and 33.8%, respectively.
Lewindon rightly emphasizes the need for more precise data on PVC placements in EDs to identify patients who do not require them. In 2018, Guilhard et al. conducted a prospective descriptive study focusing on PVC placements in the ED of the University Hospital of Saint-Denis in La Réunion, using a methodology similar to the aforementioned studies. Out of 605 included patients in the study month, 207 (34.2%) had a PVC placed, with 57% remaining unused. The study also highlighted intravenous prescriptions for medications with oral alternatives, including Paracetamol (51%), Ketoprofen (15%), Tramadol (13%), and Phloroglucinol (10%). Additionally, 142 out of 185 (77%) patients hospitalized from the ED had a PVC. However, Mailhe et al. showed in 2020 that 60.5% of them had their PVC removed within 24 hours of admission. This prospective study included 614 patients hospitalized from the ED to the infectious diseases department of the hospital-university institute of Marseille over six months. Results indicated that 509 (82.9%) arrived with a PVC, 260 (51.5%) were deemed unnecessary from the start, and 308 (60.5%) were removed within 24 hours. These findings align with those of Lederle et al. in 1992, who reported that, among 484 patients with a PVC, 168 (35% [95% CI, 31-39%]) had their catheter unused for at least 48 hours in a prospective study spanning six weeks in four hospital wards in the United States.
Catheter placement is time-consuming for nursing teams and uncomfortable for patients. Couteaux et al. demonstrated in 2008, through a one-day cross-sectional analysis in two hospitals of the Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), that vascular punctures (especially venous) were the leading cause of pain among hospitalized patients, with 38% of 671 painful events associated with this procedure. Catheter placement exposes patients to various adverse effects analyzed by Miliani et al. this multicenter prospective observational study (one surgical department and four medical departments in three hospitals in northern France) conducted between June 2013 and June 2014 analyzed the occurrence of adverse effects after PVC placement and up to 48 hours after removal. Among the 815 PVCs analyzed, 164 phlebitis (20.1% [95% CI, 17.4-23.0%]), including 34 manifest ones (grade ≥3 according to Maddox classification, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.9-5.8%]), 144 hematomas at the puncture site (17.7% [95% CI, 15.1-20.5%]), 107 fluid leaks (13.1% [95% CI, 10.9-15.6%]), 31 edemas (3.8% [95% CI, 2.6-5.4%]), and 3 suspicions of catheter-related sepsis (0.4% [95% CI, 0.1-1.1%]) were noted. Finally, a literature review showed that samples taken from a catheter are more often hemolyzed (3.3% to 77% according to studies) than those obtained directly by venous puncture (0% to 3.8%).
This observation led to a study at the Saint-Antoine Hospital ED (APHP) in 2022 aiming to analyze the rate of PVC utilization in emergencies and identify predictive factors for non-utilization. The study revealed that 23.7% of prescribed PVCs were not used, with non-utilization factors being the prescriber's expectation of usage (OR=6.35 [95% CI, 2.64-15.29], p<0.001) and the prescription motive "if needed" (OR=3.54 [95% CI, 1.37-9.17], p=0.009). These results suggest that a PVC should not be prescribed if the prescriber does not anticipate its use (whether convinced of its non-utilization or uncertain) or if it is prescribed on an "if needed" basis to avoid adverse effects associated with PVC prescription. The Saint-Antoine ED decided to implement these prescription rules, along with a staff training strategy, which will be evaluated as part of this project.
A reasoned prescription of PVCs in the ED, based on a prescription rule considering the anticipation of use and the prescription motive, would lead to a reduction in unused PVC prescriptions while maintaining patient safety. Our primary objective is to assess the impact of an educational intervention for medical and paramedical teams on the rate of PVCs placed and unused in the ED based on care data.
Staff training aims to enforce prescription recommendations in patient care and will involve multiple informational meetings with medical and paramedical teams, sending emails, and posting posters in various emergency care stations. The study will communicate the literature analysis conclusions regarding the relevance of PVC prescription in the ED, particularly the results of the 2022 ED-cath study in the department: PVC placement exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly; 23.7% to 60% of PVCs placed in the ED are not used, and non-utilization is associated with the prescriber's anticipation of non-utilization and the prescription motive "if needed." Furthermore, 24.1% of used PVCs are exclusively for first or second-tier analgesics that have an oral alternative. Therefore, physicians are advised not to prescribe PVCs if they do not expect them to be used and to maximize oral analgesics.
The secondary objectives include assessing the estimated number of PVCs not placed due to the intervention, the number of PVC placements and blood samples taken subsequently (in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed), the number of blood samples taken by direct venipuncture during initial patient management, the rate of orally administered analgesics, and the rate of hemolyzed blood samples according to the sampling technique (PVC placement or direct venipuncture).
The investigator anticipate a significant reduction in unused PVCs after the intervention, aiming to reduce adverse effects related to PVC placement, free up paramedical time, and have a positive ecological and economic impact.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | – | – |
| After intervention | – | Other: Medical staff educational intervention |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- All patients presenting to the emergency department of Saint-Antoine Hospital during the study period on weekdays (from 8 am to 6 pm, Monday to Friday).
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients ≥ 18 years old
- Prescription and placement of a PVC and/or blood sample collection without PVC placement during the emergency department stay
- Patient non-opposition to the use of care data, collected by the investigating physician after informing the patient
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patient information impossible (language barrier, neuro-cognitive impairment…)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Medical staff educational interventionThe staff training aims to enforce prescription recommendations in patient care and will involve multiple informational meetings with medical and paramedical teams, sending emails, and posting posters in various emergency care stations. The conclusions of the literature analysis regarding the relevance of prescribing PVCs in the ED will be communicated, notably the results of the ED-cath study conducted in 2022 in the department: PVC placement exposes patients to complications (hematoma, phlebitis, edema, sepsis, hemolysis of samples), is time-consuming, and costly; it has been shown that 23.7% to 60% of PVCs placed in the ED are not used, and non-utilization of the PVC is associated with the prescriber's anticipation of non-utilization and the prescription motive "if needed." | Other | After intervention |
Primary outcome
rate of non-utilization of prescribed and placed PVCs in the emergency department during the emergency stay, before and after an educational intervention
Time frame: 2 months
A PVC is considered used if the patient has received intravenous therapy (medication, filling solution, or contrast agent) or if a new blood sample has been taken remotely from the catheter placement (while the patient is still being managed in the ED).
6 secondary outcomes
The estimated number of PVCs not placed due to the intervention in the post-intervention phase (the delta between the number of PVCs placed in each phase, relative to the number of visits to the ED).
Time frame: 2 months
The rate of PVC placements performed subsequently in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed.
Time frame: 2 months
The rate of blood samples taken subsequently in patients for whom a PVC is not initially placed.
Time frame: 2 months
The rate of blood samples taken by direct venipuncture during the initial patient management.
Time frame: 2 months
The rate of orally administered analgesics.
Time frame: 2 months
The rate of hemolyzed blood samples based on the sampling technique (PVC placement or direct venipuncture).
Time frame: 2 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 11 Mar 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Peripheral Venous Catheter
Enrolling by invitation
TruVascular Access - Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Access Study
Peripheral Venous Catheterization, Difficult Intravenous Access
Not yet recruiting
Impact of a Long Peripheral Venous Catheter Protocol in Pediatric and Neonatal Care
Vascular Access Devices, Vascular Access
RecruitingObservational study
Abbott Vascular Medical Device Registry
Acute Myocardial Infarction, Restenoses, Coronary
Not yet recruiting
Near-Infrared Light for Peripheral Venous Catheterization in Adults With Difficult Venous Access
Difficult Venous Access
Active, not recruiting
Effectiveness of a Needle-free Connector With Anti-reflux Technology in Reducing Complications From Long Peripheral Venous Catheters in Hospitalised Adult Patients: Randomised Clinical Trial
Vascular Access Devices, 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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Peripheral Venous Catheter, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.
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 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Mar 2026. 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 France. 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 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?
rate of non-utilization of prescribed and placed PVCs in the emergency department during the emergency stay, before and after an educational intervention (time frame: 2 months). 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 11 Mar 2026.