MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials
Journal Article

A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
New catheter materials for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reduce the risk of device failure due to infectious, thrombotic, and catheter occlusion events. However, data from randomized trials comparing these catheters are lacking. We conducted a randomized, controlled, superiority trial in three Australian tertiary hospitals. Adults and children who were referred for PICC placement were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC and were followed for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was device failure, which was a composite of infectious (bloodstream or local) or noninfectious (thrombosis, breakage, or occlusion) complications. A total of 1098 participants underwent randomization; 365 were assigned to the hydrophobic group, 365 to the chlorhexidine group, and 368 to the standard-polyurethane group. Device failure occurred in 21 of 358 participants (5.9%) in the hydrophobic group, in 36 of 363 (9.9%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 22 of 359 (6.1%) in the standard-polyurethane group (risk difference, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, -0.2 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.7 to 3.2; P = 0.89]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 3.8 percentage points [95% CI, -0.1 to 7.8; P = 0.06]). In the hydrophobic group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio for device failure was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.78), and in the chlorhexidine group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio was 1.71 (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.99). Complications from any cause during the period of PICC placement occurred in 77 participants (21.5%) in the hydrophobic group, in 140 (38.6%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 78 (21.7%) in the standard-polyurethane group (odds ratio, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.42]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.68 to 3.29]). No adverse events were attributable to the interventions. Among adults and children who were referred for PICC placement, the risk of device failure due to noninfectious or infectious complications was not lower with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs than with standard polyurethane PICCs. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PICNIC Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12619000022167.).