Integrated versus nOn-integrated Peripheral inTravenous catheter. Which Is the most effective systeM for peripheral intravenoUs catheter Management? (The OPTIMUM study): a randomised controlled trial protocol
Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are frequently used in hospitals. However, PIVC complications are common, with failures leading to treatment delays, additional procedures, patient pain and discomfort, increased clinician workload and substantially increased healthcare costs. Recent evidence suggests integrated PIVC systems may be more effective than traditional non-integrated PIVC systems in reducing phlebitis, infiltration and costs and increasing functional dwell time. The study aim is to determine the efficacy, cost-utility and acceptability to patients and professionals of an integrated PIVC system compared with a non-integrated PIVC system.
Two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of integrated versus non-integrated PIVC systems to compare effectiveness on clinical and economic outcomes. Recruitment of 1560 patients over 2 years, with randomisation by a centralised service ensuring allocation concealment. Primary outcomes: catheter failure (composite endpoint) for reasons of: occlusion, infiltration/extravasation, phlebitis/thrombophlebitis, dislodgement, localised or catheter-associated bloodstream infections.
first time insertion success, types of PIVC failure, device colonisation, insertion pain, functional dwell time, adverse events, mortality, cost-utility and consumer acceptability. One PIVC per patient will be included, with intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline group comparisons will be made for potentially clinically important confounders. The proportional hazards assumption will be checked, and Cox regression will test the effect of group, patient, device and clinical variables on failure. An as-treated analysis will assess the effect of protocol violations. Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests will compare failure by group over time. Secondary endpoints will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques.
Ethical approval from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/16/QRBW/527), Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2017/002) and the South Metropolitan Health Services Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref No. 2016-239). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
ACTRN12617000089336.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,151,813
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#11,758
of 25,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,775
of 340,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#301
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
