Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 21, 2026
A Protocol to Set Up Needle-Free Connector with Positive Displacement on Central Venous Catheter in Intensive Care Unit
Published on: July 13, 2019
Central venous Access device SeCurement And Dressing Effectiveness for peripherally inserted central catheters in
Raymond J Chan1,2,3, Sarah Northfield4,5,6, Emily Larsen4,6
1Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Butterfield Street, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, 4029, Australia. Raymond.Chan@qut.edu.au.
Background:
Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used for delivering intravenous therapy. PICC failure is unacceptably high (up to 40%) due to mechanical, infectious and thrombotic complications. Poor securement potentiates all complication types. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to examine the feasibility of a large RCT of four dressing and securement methods to prevent PICC failure.
Methods:
This single-centre pilot RCT included 124 admitted medical/surgical/cancer patients aged ≥ 16 years with a PICC. Interventions were: (i) standard polyurethane dressing and sutureless securement device (SPU + SSD, control); (ii) polyurethane with absorbent lattice pad dressing (PAL + Tape); (iii) combination securement-dressing (CSD); and (iv) tissue adhesive (TA + SPU). All groups except TA + SPU had a chlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated disc. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment and safety/acceptability of the interventions. The primary outcome was PICC failure, a composite of PICC removal for local infection, catheter-associated bloodstream infection, dislodgement, occlusion, and/or catheter fracture. Secondary outcomes included individual complications, dressing failure and dwell time, PICC dwell time, skin complications/phlebitis indicators, product costs, and patient and staff satisfaction. Qualitative feedback was also collected.
Results:
PICC failure incidence was: PAL + CHG + Tape (1/5; 20%; 17.4/1000 days), SPU + SSD + CHG (control) (4/39; 10%; 9.0/1000 days), TA + SPU (3/35; 9%; 9.6/1000 days), and CSD + CHG (3/42; 7%; 9.4/1000 days). Recruitment to PAL + CHG + Tape was ceased after five participants due to concerns of PICC dislodgement when removing the dressing. CSD + CHG, TA + SPU (TA applied only at PICC insertion time), and control treatments were acceptable to patients and health professionals.
Conclusion:
A large RCT of CSD + CHG and TA + SPU (but not PAL + CHG + Tape) versus standard care is feasible.
Trial Registration:
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000027415 . Registered on 15 January 2016.
More Related Videos
05:51Computed Tomography (CT) Guided Implantation of a Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (TIVAP) through Subclavian Vein
Published on: January 13, 2026
10:09Drug Treatment by Central Venous Catheter in a Mouse Model of Angiotensin II Induced Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Monitoring by 3D Ultrasound
Published on: August 4, 2022