Perforated intravenous catheter design is acceptable for the administration of contrast-enhanced computed tomography administration in cancer patients: Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial

• Published in: The journal of vascular access Vol. 25; no. 5; p. 1519
• Main Authors: Gavin, Nicole C, Wignall, Elizabeth, Marsh, Nicole, Marquart, Louise, Dobeli, Karen L, O'Brien, Catherine, Verderosa, Anthony D, Totsika, Makrina, Keogh, Samantha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.09.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects; Catheterization, Peripheral - instrumentation; Catheters, Indwelling; Contrast Media - administration & dosage; Contrast Media - adverse effects; Equipment Design; Feasibility Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Pilot Projects; Predictive Value of Tests; Time Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Vascular Access Devices; extravasation of diagnostic and therapeutic materials; tomography; contrast media; randomised controlled trial; neoplasm; Catheters; X-ray computed
• ISSN: 1724-6032
• DOI: 10.1177/11297298231171422

Optimising first time success of peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion and reducing intravenous (IV) complications in cancer patients undergoing contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is vital to ensure vascular access preservation and diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating a novel perforated PIVC compared to a standard PIVC. A single centre, parallel-group, pilot RCT was conducted between March and May 2020. Adult participants diagnosed with cancer were randomised to a non-perforated PIVC (standard care) or a PIVC with a novel perforated design (intervention) for the administration of IV contrast. There were two primary outcomes: (1) feasibility of an adequately powered RCT with pre-established criteria; and (2) all-cause PIVC failure. Secondary outcomes included: first insertion success, modes of PIVC failure, dwell time, contrast injection parameters (volume and injection rate), contrast enhancement, radiographer satisfaction and adverse events. Feasibility outcomes were met, except for eligibility (⩾90%) and recruitment (⩾90%). In total, 166 participants were screened, 128 (77%) were eligible and of these 101/128 (79%) were randomised; 50 to standard care and 51 to intervention. First time insertion rate was 94% (47/50) in standard care and 90% (46/50) in intervention. The median dwell time was 37 minutes (interquartile range (IQR): 25-55) in standard care and 35 minutes (IQR: 25-60) in the intervention group. There was one PIVC failure, a contrast media extravasation, in the intervention group (1/51; 2%). The desired contrast injection rate was not achieved in 4/101 (4%) of participants; two from each group. Radiographers were satisfied with the contrast flow rate. This pilot RCT suggests perforated PIVCs provide expected flow rate, with no evidence of differences in contrast enhancement to non-perforated PIVCs. The feasibility of conducting a larger powered RCT was demonstrated.