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).
CONCLUSION: 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.
© 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine
Interventions
Participants were randomized to receive either of the following PICCs: (1) standard care: Cook™ polyurethane, turbo-ject, power-injectable PICC (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) or (2) comparison: BioFlo® polyurethane with Endexo® technology (AngioDynamics Inc, Queensbury, NY).
Outcomes
The primary outcome was feasibility of a full-efficacy trial established by composite analysis of the elements of eligibility (>70% of patients will be eligible), recruitment (>70% of patients will agree to enroll), retention and attrition (<15% of participants are lost to follow-up or withdraw from the study), protocol adherence (>80% of participants receive their allocated, randomly assigned study product), missing data (<10% of data are missed during data collection), parent and healthcare staff satisfaction, and PICC failure effect size estimates to allow sample size calculations.18,19 PICC failure was defined as the following complications associated with PICC removal: (1) catheter-associated BSI,8,20-22 (2) local site infection,22 (3) venous thrombosis,23 (4) occlusion,24,25 (5) PICC fracture, or (6) PICC dislodgement.25,26 Parents (or caregivers) and healthcare staff were asked to rate their level of confidence with the study product and ease of PICC removal by using a 0 to 100 numeric rating scale (NRS) of increasing confidence and/or ease. These data were collected at the time of PICC removal. Operators were also asked to rate their levels of satisfaction with the insertion equipment and ease of PICC insertion immediately upon completion of the insertion procedure (both 0-100 NRS of increasing satisfaction and/or ease). Secondary outcomes included individual PICC complications (eg, occlusion) occurring at any time point during the PICC dwell (including at removal), adverse events, pain, redness at the insertion site, and overall PICC dwell.
Study Procedures
The research nurse (ReN) screened operating theater lists for patients, obtained written informed consent, and initiated the randomization. Randomization was computer generated, and web based via Griffith University (https://www151.griffith.edu.au/random) to ensure allocation concealment until study entry. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with computer-generated and randomly varied block sizes of 2 and 4. Data were collected by the ReN on the day of insertion, at day 1 postinsertion, then every 2 to 3 days thereafter so that PICCs were checked at least twice per week until study completion. Participants were included in the trial until 12 weeks post-PICC insertion, study withdrawal or PICC removal (whichever came first), with an additional 48 hours follow-up for infection outcomes. Patient review was face to face during the inpatient stay, with discharged patients’ follow-up occurring via outpatient clinics, hospital-in-the-home service, or telephone.
Data collection was via Research Electronic Data Capture (https://project-redcap.org/). The ReN collected data on primary and secondary outcomes by using the predefined criteria. Demographic and clinical data were collected to assess the success of randomization, describe the participant group, and display characteristics known to increase the risk of PICC complication and thrombosis. A blinded radiologist and infectious disease specialist reviewed and diagnosed thrombosis of deep veins and catheter-associated BSI outcomes, respectively.
PICC Procedures
Extensive prestudy education for 2 months prior to trial commencement was provided to all clinicians involved with the insertion and care of PICCs, including the study products. PICCs were inserted in an operating theater environment by a qualified consultant pediatric anesthetist, a senior anesthetic registrar or fellow in an approved anesthetic training program, or pediatric vascular access nurse practitioner. Ultrasound guidance was used to assess a patient’s vasculature and puncture the vessel. The operator chose the PICC size on the basis of clinical judgment of vessel size and patient needs and then inserted the allocated PICC.27 Preferred PICC tip location was the cavoatrial junction. All PICC tip positions were confirmed with a chest x-ray before use.
Postinsertion, PICCs were managed by local interdisciplinary clinicians in accordance with local practice guidelines.27-31 PICC care and management includes the use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% alcohol for site antisepsis and neutral displacement needleless connectors (TUTA Pulse; Medical Australia Limited, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia); normal saline was used to flush after medication administration, and if the device was not in use for 6 hours or longer, heparin is instilled with securement via bordered polyurethane dressing (Tegaderm 1616; 3M, St Paul, Minnesota) and a sutureless securement device (Statlock VPPCSP; Bard, Georgia).
Statistical Analyses
Data were exported to Stata 1532 for cleaning and analysis. Data cleaning of outlying figures and missing and implausible data was undertaken prior to analysis. Missing data were not imputed. The PICC was the unit of measurement, and all randomly assigned patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.33 Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to ascertain the primary outcome of feasibility for the larger trial. Incidence rates (per 1,000 catheter days) and rate ratios, including 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. The comparability of groups at baseline was described across demographic, clinical, and device characteristics. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (with log-rank tests) were used to compare PICC failure between study groups over time. Associations between baseline characteristics and failure were described by calculating hazard ratios (HRs). Univariable Cox regression was performed only due to the relatively low number of outcomes. P values of <.05 were considered statistically significant.
