• Amanda J Ullman, Deanne August, Tricia M Kleidon, Rachel M Walker, Nicole Marsh, Andrew C Bulmer, Ben Pearch, Naomi Runnegar, Joanne Leema, Paul Lee-Archer, Cathy Biles, Victoria Gibson, Ruth Royle, Katrina Southam, Joshua Byrnes, Vineet Chopra, Alan Coulthard, Peter Mollee, Claire M Rickard, HarrisPatrick N APNA0000-0002-2895-0345From the University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (A.J.U., D.A., T.M.K., N.M., N.R., P.L.-A., V.G., A.C., P.M., C.M.R., P.N.A.H.); Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, Au, and Robert S Ware.
• From the University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (A.J.U., D.A., T.M.K., N.M., N.R., P.L.-A., V.G., A.C., P.M., C.M.R., P.N.A.H.); Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (A.J.U., T.M.K., P.L.-A., V.G.); Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (A.J.U., D.A., T.M.K., R.M.W., N.M., A.C.B., R.R., J.B., V.C., C.M.R., R.S.W.); Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (A.J.U., T.M.K., N.M., K.S., A.C., P.N.A.H.); Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (R.M.W., B.P., N.R., J.L., C.B., P.M.); University of Colorado, Denver (V.C.); and Metro North Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia (C.M.R.).
• N. Engl. J. Med. 2025 Jan 9; 392 (2): 161172161-172.

BackgroundNew 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.).Copyright © 2025 Massachusetts Medical Society.

35 keywords...

hide…