7 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if midline catheters can reduce adverse patient outcomes in adult patients requiring a single vasopressor. The main questions the study aims to answer are: * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of catheter-related bloodstream infections as compared to central venous catheters? * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of deep venous thrombosis as compared to central venous catheters? Researchers will compare midline catheters to central venous catheters to see if there is a reduction in these events. Participants will be randomized to the midline catheter group or the central venous catheter group. The catheters will be part of standard of care for vasopressor therapy. The participants will be followed for 30 days.
Many patients in the emergency department have veins that are difficult to get an intrevenous (IV) catheter into (called "difficult IV access"). These patients may require other methods to obtain access to a vein for administration of the necessary medications. The 2-inch long IV is most commonly used in emergency departments for people with difficulty IV access. Typically, a healthcare worker will use an ultrasound to help to see the veins underneath the skin while inserting the IV into the vein. That is, the ultrasound helps the healthcare worker visualize veins that are deeper in the arm and may not be felt through the skin. Another device that can be used is a 4-inch midline catheter. This device is less commonly used as many emergency departments do not have participants available, but it serves the same purpose as the 2-inch long IVs (that is, to give medicine into the vein and sometimes to take blood). A 4-inch midline catheter is similar to a 2-inch long IV, but has a few differences. First, the 4-inch midline catheter is even longer than the 2-inch long IV. The 4-inch midline catheter is 10-cm (about 4-inches or the size of 4 quarters side-by-side), while the 2-inch long IV is 4.78-cm (nearly 2-inches or two quarters side-by-side). Second, the 4-inch midline catheter is inserted into using a guidewire to help move the catheter in the vein (similar in concept to a train moving along a track), while the 2-inch long IV does not have this guidewire. The guidewire does not hurt and most do not know it is being used. It is just an additional step to help guide the catheter in the vein. The investigators are conducting this research study to determine which catheter is better for patients with difficult IV access: the 4-inch midline catheter or the 2-inch long IV.
Retrospective chart review to evaluate and compare the rate of failures between midlines made from different materials
The objective of this research is to verify the procedural improvements enabled by use of a CAIG system to supplement existing ultrasound guided, needle-based procedures. The primary focus will be procedures performed by the Anesthesia department.
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a continuous needle tracking system on the accuracy, speed, and quality of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter insertion.
According to the U.S. CF Foundation Patient Registry, more than 25% of children and 40% of adults were treated with intravenous (IV) antibiotics for flares of lung disease in 2016. Medication for these flares is often delivered through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Case series have identified important complications of PICCs in CF patients such as blood clots and infection. The frequency of PICC-associated blood clots in CF patients ranges from 2 to 8%. Catheter-related complications may interfere with completion of therapy and lead to repeated procedures and other complex medical treatments. In some cases PICC complications may discourage patients from accepting future courses of IV antibiotics. Therefore, it is very important to identify patient- and device-related factors that are linked with more frequent complications and to figure out ways to reduce these risks. Proposed risk factors fall into several broad categories. First are catheter-related factors; second are patient factors; and third are catheter-management factors. To date, no multicenter trial has carefully studied PICC complications in a large group of adult and pediatric CF patients from the time each catheter is placed to when it is removed. The main purpose of this study is to see whether the investigators can identify important factors in each of the three categories (patient, catheter, and catheter management) that are linked to various complications.
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central catheters that are placed via peripheral vein under ultrasound guidance and may be used for patients with difficult venous access for long-term central or peripheral infusion therapies as well as central venous pressure monitoring in a critical care setting. Although PICCs provide a great option for some patients, these catheters have known complications including catheter-related bloodstream infection, catheter-related venous thrombosis or clotting, malfunction, and high cost. Midline catheters represent a potentially attractive alternative to PICCs for peripheral infusions. As midlines have increased in popularity and new midlines have been introduced into the market, it is necessary to better understand complication profiles of various midline catheters, as it is likely that all catheters are not created equal. Specifically, the incidence of symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis is of interest. Some midline catheters are coated to provide protection against catheter-related venous thrombosis and/or catheter-related bloodstream infection. The theoretical benefit(s) of these catheters need further validation in human subjects.