Midline Catheter Versus Long Peripheral Intravenous Catheter in Hospitalized Adult Patients

Vascular Access Devices

vascular access device, midline catheter, long Peripheral Intravenous Catheter

This research seeks to compare two types of vascular access (catheters that are inserted into the vein) for patient treatment during hospitalization. This research will evaluate how long each catheter lasts before presenting problems that may lead to its removal from the vein (the most common are swelling on the site of the catheter, clogging of the catheter, infections, or other less common problems. Each patient will be randomly selected to receive either catheter. In this study, we will also estimate how much each patient will spend if any of the problems mentioned occur.

This randomized, parallel, open, controlled, single-center clinical trial is blind to outcome analysis. The use of midline catheter will be compared, regarding duration of use without complications, to the use of long peripheral intravenous catheter during continuous our intermittent intravenous therapy in adult clinical patients who have been hospitalized for up to 30 days. The intervention group will consist of hospitalized adult clinical patients who were identified with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) and who received medical indication of continuous or intermittent intravenous therapy for more than five and a maximum of 30 days of treatment. These patients will receive PowerGlide ProTM Midline catheter. The control group will consist of patients with the same profile described as the intervention group and will receive the insertion of a long peripheral venous catheter Introcan Safety Deep Access. At the end of the study, an economic analysis will be carried out from the perspective of the public health system if the intervention group shows favorable results.

Brazil