Clinical Research Directory

Single Lumen Midline Catheter vs Ultrasound Guided Peripheral IV as Performed by Bedside Emergency Department Registered Nurses

Obtaining intravenous (IV) access is one of the most common procedures performed in the emergency department (ED). IV access is necessary for many aspects of patient care, including blood tests, administration of medications and intravenous fluids, and diagnostic imaging. However, some patients have difficult intravenous access (DIVA), making it challenging to successfully place an IV catheter. Difficulty obtaining IV access can lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment, prolonged emergency department stays, multiple needle punctures, and increased patient discomfort. Several specialized IV devices are available for patients with DIVA. Two commonly used ultrasound-guided devices are long peripheral intravenous catheters and single-lumen midline catheters. Both devices are inserted into veins using ultrasound guidance, but they differ in catheter length and expected duration of use. Long peripheral IV catheters are commonly used in emergency departments but may fail relatively quickly. Midline catheters may remain functional for longer periods and may reduce the need for additional IV insertions during a patient's hospital stay. However, these devices have traditionally been inserted by specialized clinicians, such as members of vascular access teams, rather than by bedside emergency department nurses, who perform most vascular access procedures in many emergency departments. The purpose of this study is to compare ultrasound-guided single-lumen midline catheters with ultrasound-guided long peripheral IV catheters when both procedures are performed by specially trained bedside emergency department nurses. The study will evaluate whether midline catheters can be inserted as successfully and as safely as long peripheral IV catheters in adult emergency department patients with difficult intravenous access. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either an ultrasound-guided single-lumen midline catheter or an ultrasound-guided long peripheral IV catheter. Researchers will compare the two devices by measuring procedural success, catheter-related complications, catheter dwell time, completion of care using the original device, and patient satisfaction. The results of this study may help determine whether bedside emergency department nurses with training and experience in ultrasound-guided vascular access can successfully use single-lumen midline catheters in routine clinical practice. The study will also evaluate which vascular access device provides the best balance of safety, reliability, and patient experience for emergency department patients with difficult intravenous access. This information may help guide future recommendations for vascular access device selection in the emergency department.

Immersive VR to Reduce Stress, Anxiety, and Pain During PICC/Midline Placement

Medical and technological advancements allow increasingly complex invasive procedures to be performed on hospitalized patients, improving their survival rates and prognosis. However, these interventions impact physical, emotional, and psychological health. In this scenario, post-hospitalization syndrome (PHS) emerges as a concerning phenomenon characterized by functional, emotional, and social decline after discharge. Invasive procedures such as surgeries or prolonged use of catheters not only compromise physical integrity but also contribute to disorders like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress. In fact, between 20% and 30% of patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) develop symptoms compatible with post-traumatic stress disorder. This underscores the need for a comprehensive approach focused on psychological and social well-being during and after the hospital stay. Despite humanization initiatives, few hospitals successfully implement them due to a lack of objective evaluations and clinical recommendations that justify their necessity. In this regard, venous catheterization (VC) is the most prevalent invasive procedure. The pain, anxiety, or fear caused by this technique triggers physiological and psychological alterations that can interfere with the successful insertion of the device. This stress response induces vasoconstriction, reducing the caliber of the vein, which increases technical difficulty, elevates the risk of complications, raises healthcare costs, and negatively impacts patient satisfaction. Natural outdoor environments have been shown to reduce stress, enhancing well-being and health in the general population. In this sense, the use of immersive virtual reality (IVR) to achieve immersion in virtual nature could help not only by diverting attention away from the painful or anxiety-inducing stimulus during invasive procedures but also by providing pleasant stimuli that could have a physiological impact. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of IVR on stress and anxiety during VC using validated clinical scales, measuring the caliber of the vessel to be punctured, and determining salivary biomarkers of stress, well-being, and pain. Confirming this hypothesis will provide the evidence to integrate virtual reality into the National Health System as a standard tool for more humanized and innovative care.

VADIOR: Advantages of Pre-operative Positioning of Peripherally Inserted Vascular Accesses in DIVA Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery

Our goal is to demonstrate how a standardized approach that involves the pre-operative implantation of the venous access devices in the DIVA patients (EA-DIVA score\> or =8), scheduled for orthopedic surgery, impacts both the intra- and post-operative safety of the patient and the economic savings of our institute. The latter would be achieved both through a reduction in operating room costs and in terms of recovery of operating room hours

Complications of Midline Catheter in Surgical Children

The goal of this observational study is to understand the incidence and risk factors of complications associated with midline catheter placement in pediatric patients (under 18 years old) undergoing general anesthesia. The main questions it aims to answer are: What is the overall complication rate (including malfunction, bleeding, thrombosis, inflammation, and infection) after midline catheter placement in children? What factors (e.g., age, weight, vein diameter, insertion site, catheter maintenance duration) are associated with a higher risk of complications? Participants will: Receive a midline catheter during surgery under general anesthesia. Undergo ultrasound-guided assessment of the catheter site immediately after placement, 24 hours later, and before the catheter is removed. Be monitored for any complications related to the catheter, including infection, blood clots, or blockage. This study will help identify which factors increase the risk of complications, improving the safe use of midline catheters in pediatric patients.

CVCs Versus Midline Catheters

The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if midline catheters can reduce adverse patient outcomes in adult patients requiring a single vasopressor. The main questions the study aims to answer are: * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of catheter-related bloodstream infections as compared to central venous catheters? * Do midline catheters reduce the rates of deep venous thrombosis as compared to central venous catheters? Researchers will compare midline catheters to central venous catheters to see if there is a reduction in these events. Participants will be randomized to the midline catheter group or the central venous catheter group. The catheters will be part of standard of care for vasopressor therapy. The participants will be followed for 30 days.

Single Lumen Midline Catheter vs Long Peripheral Intravenous Cather for Difficult Intravenous Access in the ED

Many patients in the emergency department have veins that are difficult to get an intrevenous (IV) catheter into (called "difficult IV access"). These patients may require other methods to obtain access to a vein for administration of the necessary medications. The 2-inch long IV is most commonly used in emergency departments for people with difficulty IV access. Typically, a healthcare worker will use an ultrasound to help to see the veins underneath the skin while inserting the IV into the vein. That is, the ultrasound helps the healthcare worker visualize veins that are deeper in the arm and may not be felt through the skin. Another device that can be used is a 4-inch midline catheter. This device is less commonly used as many emergency departments do not have participants available, but it serves the same purpose as the 2-inch long IVs (that is, to give medicine into the vein and sometimes to take blood). A 4-inch midline catheter is similar to a 2-inch long IV, but has a few differences. First, the 4-inch midline catheter is even longer than the 2-inch long IV. The 4-inch midline catheter is 10-cm (about 4-inches or the size of 4 quarters side-by-side), while the 2-inch long IV is 4.78-cm (nearly 2-inches or two quarters side-by-side). Second, the 4-inch midline catheter is inserted into using a guidewire to help move the catheter in the vein (similar in concept to a train moving along a track), while the 2-inch long IV does not have this guidewire. The guidewire does not hurt and most do not know it is being used. It is just an additional step to help guide the catheter in the vein. The investigators are conducting this research study to determine which catheter is better for patients with difficult IV access: the 4-inch midline catheter or the 2-inch long IV.