Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Amit Bahl, Emily Diloreto, David Jankowski, Mahmoud Hijazi, Nai-Wei Chen, Amit Bahl, Emily Diloreto, David Jankowski, Mahmoud Hijazi, Nai-Wei Chen

Abstract

Importance: Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis (CRT) are sparse, with some evidence indicating that MCs have a high rate of CRT.

Objective: To compare 2 MCs with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for this outcome.

Design, setting, and participants: In this parallel, 2-arm randomized clinical trial, 496 adult patients hospitalized at a tertiary care suburban academic medical center who received an MC were assessed for eligibility between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020, and 212 were randomized.

Interventions: Inpatients were randomized to receive a 4F antithrombotic MC (MC-AT) or a 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial MC (MC-AT-AM).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was symptomatic midline CRT inclusive of deep vein thrombosis or superficial venous thrombophlebitis within 30 days after insertion. Secondary outcomes included catheter-associated bloodstream infection and catheter failure.

Results: A total of 191 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [16.7] years; 114 [59.7%] female) were included in the final analysis: 94 patients in the MC-AT group and 97 in the MC-AT-AM group. Symptomatic midline CRT occurred in 7 patients (7.5%) in the MC-AT group and 11 (11.3%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .46). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) in the MC-AT group and 5 patients (5.2%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P > .99). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1 patient in the MC-AT group. No catheter-associated bloodstream infection occurred in either group. Premature catheter failure occurred in 22 patients (23.4%) in the MC-AT group and 20 (20.6%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .64). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for the risk of catheter failure (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.67-2.43; P = .46).

Conclusions and relevance: No difference was found in thrombosis in MCs with 2 distinct antithrombogenic mechanisms; however, the risk of CRT in both groups was high. Practitioners should strongly consider the safety risks associated with MCs when determining the appropriate vascular access device.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03725293.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bahl reported receiving grants from Teleflex during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the Teleflex Key Opinion Leader program outside the submitted work. Ms Diloreto reported receiving grants from Teleflex and BD during the conduct of the study outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.. Trial Profile of Midline Catheter–Associated Venous…
Figure.. Trial Profile of Midline Catheter–Associated Venous Thromboembolism
MC-AT indicates 4F antithrombotic midline catheter; MC-AT-AM, 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial midline catheter.

References

    1. iDATA. US Market Report Suite for Vascular Access Devices and Accessories. 2020. Accessed July 1, 2021.
    1. Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. ; Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) Panel . The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6)(suppl):S1-S40. doi:10.7326/M15-0744
    1. Balsorano P, Virgili G, Villa G, et al. . Peripherally inserted central catheter–related thrombosis rate in modern vascular access era—when insertion technique matters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2020;21(1):45-54. doi:10.1177/1129729819852203
    1. O’Grady NP. Demystifying vascular access in hospitalized patients. MAGIC makes a difference. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(10):1434-1435. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201508-509ED
    1. Adams DZ, Little A, Vinsant C, Khandelwal S. The midline catheter: a clinical review. J Emerg Med. 2016;51(3):252-258. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.05.029
    1. Chopra V, Kaatz S, Swaminathan L, et al. . Variation in use and outcomes related to midline catheters: results from a multicentre pilot study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(9):714-720. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008554
    1. Xu T, Kingsley L, DiNucci S, et al. . Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters versus midline catheters at a large academic medical center. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(12):1458-1461. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.09.010
    1. Lisova K, Hromadkova J, Pavelková K, Zauška V, Havlin J, Charvat J. The incidence of symptomatic upper limb venous thrombosis associated with midline catheter: prospective observation. J Vasc Access. 2018;19(5):492-495. doi:10.1177/1129729818761276
    1. Gargallo Maicas C, Todoli Parra JA, Romera Barroso B, et al. . Upper limb deep venous thrombosis: risk factors, outcome, and postthrombotic syndrome [in Spanish]. Rev Clin Esp. 2005;205(1):3-8. doi:10.1157/13070751
    1. Benhamou Y, Marie I, David N, et al. . Upper limb deep venous thrombosis [in Spanish]. Rev Med Intern. 2011;32(9):567-574. doi:10.1016/j.revmed.2010.08.007
    1. Thornburg CD, Smith PB, Smithwick ML, Cotten CM, Benjamin DK Jr. Association between thrombosis and bloodstream infection in neonates with peripherally inserted catheters. Thromb Res. 2008;122(6):782-785. doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2007.10.001
    1. Tripathi S, Kumar S, Kaushik S. The practice and complications of midline catheters: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2020. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004764
    1. Bahl A, Karabon P, Chu D. Comparison of venous thrombosis complications in midlines versus peripherally inserted central catheters: are midlines the safer option? Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019;25:1076029619839150. doi:10.1177/1076029619839150
    1. Witmeyer R. Endexo Non Heparinized Surface Reduces Platelet Adhesion and Increases Catheter Lumen Patency. Interface Biologics; 2008. Accessed August 22, 2021.
    1. Parienti JJ, Mongardon N, Mégarbane B, et al. ; 3SITES Study Group . Intravascular complications of central venous catheterization by insertion site. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(13):1220-1229. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1500964
    1. Kamphuisen PW, Lee AY. Catheter-related thrombosis: lifeline or a pain in the neck? Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2012;2012:638-644. doi:10.1182/asheducation.V2012.1.638.3798656
    1. Ryder M, Gunther RA, Sylvia CJ, et al. . The effect of chlorhedixine catheter coating compared to an uncoated and biomimetic catheter on the reduction of fibrin sheath formation in an in vivo clinically simulated ovine model. Accessed August 22, 2021.
    1. Wall C, Moore J, Thachil J. Catheter-related thrombosis: a practical approach. J Intensive Care Soc. 2016;17(2):160-167. doi:10.1177/1751143715618683
    1. National Healthcare Safety Network . Bloodstream infection event (central line-associated bloodstream infection and non-central line associated bloodstream infection). In: National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Patient Safety Component Manual. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018. Accessed August 22, 2021.
    1. Sharp R, Esterman A, McCutcheon H, Hearse N, Cummings M. The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: a retrospective, observational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(5):694-702. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.002
    1. Mushtaq A, Navalkele B, Kaur M, et al. . Comparison of complications in midlines versus central venous catheters: are midlines safer than central venous lines? Am J Infect Control. 2018;46(7):788-792. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2018.01.006
    1. Sylvia CJ Jr, Wagel MA, Giare-Patel K, Spangler TA, Breznock EM, Gupta N. Chlorhexidine-coated peripherally inserted central catheters reduce fibroblastic sleeve formation in an in vivo ovine model. J Vasc Access. 2018;19(6):644-650. doi:10.1177/1129729818769033
    1. Angiodynamics. BioFlo Midline Catheter with Endexo Technology. Accessed August 15, 2021.
    1. Slaughter E, Kynoch K, Brodribb M, Keogh SJ. Evaluating the impact of central venous catheter materials and design on thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020;17(5):376-384. doi:10.1111/wvn.12472
    1. Periard D, Monney P, Waeber G, et al. . Randomized controlled trial of peripherally inserted central catheters vs. peripheral catheters for middle duration in-hospital intravenous therapy. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(8):1281-1288. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03053.x

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner