A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Dressing and Securement Techniques in 101 Pediatric Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) dressing and securement techniques to prevent complications and failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This pilot, 3-armed, randomized controlled trial was undertaken at Royal Children's Hospital and Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, between April 2014 and September 2015. Pediatric participants (N = 101; age range, 0-18 y) were assigned to standard care (bordered polyurethane [BPU] dressing, sutureless securement device), tissue adhesive (TA) (plus BPU dressing), or integrated securement dressings (ISDs). Average PICC dwell time was 8.1 days (range, 0.2-27.7 d). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were PICC complications, dressing performance, and parent and staff satisfaction. RESULTS: Protocol feasibility was established. PICC failure was 6% (2/32) with standard care, 6% (2/31) with ISD, and 3% (1/32) with TA. PICC complications were 16% across all groups. TA provided immediate postoperative hemostasis, prolonging the first dressing change until 5.5 days compared with 3.5 days and 2.5 days with standard care and ISD respectively. Bleeding was the most common reason for first dressing change: standard care (n = 18; 75%), ISD (n = 11; 69%), TA (n = 4; 27%). Parental satisfaction (median 9.7/10; P = .006) and staff feedback (9.2/10; P = .002) were most positive for ISD. CONCLUSIONS: This research suggests safety and acceptability of different securement dressings compared with standard care; securement dressings may also reduce dressing changes after insertion. Further research is required to confirm clinically cost-effective methods to prevent PICC failure.

How Does Your PICCOMPARE? A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Various PICC Materials in Pediatrics.

BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), recent literature highlights their potential injurious complications. Innovative PICC materials have been developed to prevent thrombosis and infection formation (Endexo®) and antireflux valves to prevent occlusion (pressure-activated safety valve®). No large randomized controlled trial has assessed these technologies. Our primary aim was to evaluate the feasibility of a large randomized controlled efficacy trial of PICC materials and design to reduce PICC complication in pediatrics. METHODS: A randomized controlled feasibility trial was undertaken at the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in South Brisbane, Australia, between March 2016 and November 2016. Consecutive recruitment of 150 pediatric participants were randomly assigned to receive either (1) polyurethane PICC with a clamp or (2) BioFlo® PICC (AngioDynamics Inc, Queensbury, NY). Primary outcomes were trial feasibility, including PICC failure (thrombosis, occlusion, infection, breakage, or dislodgement). Secondary outcomes were PICC complications during use. RESULTS: Protocol feasibility was established, including staff and patient acceptability, timely recruitment, no missing primary outcome data, and 0% attrition. PICC failure was 22% (16 of 74, standard care) and 11% (8 of 72, BioFlo®) corresponding to 12.6 and 7.3 failures per 1000 hours (risk ratio 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-1.43; P = .172). PICC failures were primarily due to thrombosis (standard care 7% versus BioFlo® 3%) and complete occlusion (standard care 7% versus BioFlo® 1%). No blood stream infections occurred. Significantly fewer patients with BioFlo® had PICC complications during use (15% vs 34%; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: BioFlo® PICCs appear potentially safer for pediatrics than traditional standard care PICCs with a clamp. Further research is required to definitively identify clinical, cost-effective methods to prevent PICC failure and improve reliability.