BACKGROUND & AIMS:Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are long-term vascular access devices inserted through a peripheral vein of the arm and serve as an alternative to traditional central venous catheters. Currently different types of PICCs are available. No data, however, are available in regard to materials and tip designs. We designed a prospective, randomized trial comparing two major PICCs with different material and tip design: a silicone catheter with distal side slits (Groshong Catheter) and a polyurethane catheter with open-end tip (PI Catheter). METHODS:Twenty-six patients who underwent PICCs placement between August 2010 and December 2010 were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of PICC indication. Secondary endpoints were complications rate. RESULT: The completion rate of PICC indication was not different significantly (81.8% and 92.9%, p = 0.5648) and the total complication rate were also not different significantly (9.1% and 14.3%, P = 1.0000) between two catheters. In detail, PI Catheter were associated with a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion, and Groshong Catheter were associated with a significantly hemorrhages after removal. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the durability and the complication between Groshong Catheter and PI Catheter. (UMIN Clinical Trial Registry UMIN000005451).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) are long-term vascular access devices inserted through a peripheral vein of the arm and serve as an alternative to traditional central venous catheters. Currently different types of PICCs are available. No data, however, are available in regard to materials and tip designs. We designed a prospective, randomized trial comparing two major PICCs with different material and tip design: a silicone catheter with distal side slits (Groshong Catheter) and a polyurethane catheter with open-end tip (PI Catheter). METHODS: Twenty-six patients who underwent PICCs placement between August 2010 and December 2010 were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of PICC indication. Secondary endpoints were complications rate. RESULT: The completion rate of PICC indication was not different significantly (81.8% and 92.9%, p = 0.5648) and the total complication rate were also not different significantly (9.1% and 14.3%, P = 1.0000) between two catheters. In detail, PI Catheter were associated with a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion, and Groshong Catheter were associated with a significantly hemorrhages after removal. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the durability and the complication between Groshong Catheter and PI Catheter. (UMIN Clinical Trial Registry UMIN000005451).
Authors: Ralph Gnannt; Nicolas Waespe; Michael Temple; Afsaneh Amirabadi; Kuan Liu; Leonardo R Brandão; Bairbre L Connolly Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-02-27
Authors: Mohamed Ali Ugas; Hyongyu Cho; Gregory M Trilling; Zainab Tahir; Humaera Farrukh Raja; Sami Ramadan; Waseem Jerjes; Peter V Giannoudis Journal: Ann Surg Innov Res Date: 2012-09-04