Prof Marco Picardi - Hematology - AOU FEDERICO II
Naples, Italy
NCT Number: NCT02405728
The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) represents a major advance for hematological patients, enabling the effective delivery of chemotherapy and/or blood products particularly for prolonged infusions or in situation of difficult venous access. In modern medical practice their use has increased rapidly for several reasons, including ease of insertion, many uses (e.g., drug administration and venous access), perceived safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs).
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–90 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Naples, Italy
The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) represents a major advance for hematological patients, enabling the effective delivery of chemotherapy and/or blood products particularly for prolonged infusions or in situation of difficult venous access. In modern medical practice their use has increased rapidly for several reasons, including ease of insertion, many uses (e.g., drug administration and venous access), perceived safety, and costeffectiveness compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs). Despite these benefits, PICCs are associated with deep vein thrombosis of the arm and pulmonary embolism. These complications, which are often called venous thromboembolism, are important because they not only complicate and interrupt treatment, but also increase cost, morbidity and mortality. Despite this effect, the burden and risk of PICC-related venous thromboembolism is uncertain and clinicians have scarce evidence on which to base choice of vascular access. Evidence to choose one vascular access over the other is lacking in literature, in particular for patients affected by haematological malignancies, in which chemotherapy is more likely to cause myelosuppression, with a major risk of bloodstream infections. Furthermore, the precise incidence and the risk of PICC-related venous thromboembolism relative to that of other CICCs is unknown. An understanding of this risk in the context of growing PICC use is an important cost and patients safety questions. Up to now, no systematic review has been done to investigate these questions.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Randomization between two well established clinical routine vascular access devices
Randomization between two well established clinical routine vascular access devices
Time frame: 1 year
Time frame: 1 year
Federico II University
Other
Vascular Access in Hematological Patients - PICC Versus CVC in a Phase IV Randomized Controlled Trial
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT05911451
Arteriovenous Fistula, Arteriovenous Graft
Alkmaar, Netherlands
View Trial DetailsNCT05741866
Cardiovascular Diseases, Catheter Complications
Herston, Queensland, Australia
View Trial DetailsNCT02513303
Arteriovenous Fistula, Arteriovenous Malformations
Huntsville, Alabama, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05425056
Arteriovenous Fistula, Arteriovenous Malformations
San Diego, California, United States
View Trial Details