IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressor infusion administered via peripheral cannula versus central venous catheter for critically ill adults: A study protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Stacey Watts
  • Yogesh Apte
  • Thomas Holland
  • April Hatt
  • Alison Craswell
  • Frances Lin
  • Alexis Tabah
  • Robert Ware
  • Joshua Byrnes
  • Christopher Anstey
  • Gerben Keijzers
  • Mahesh Ramanan

Abstract

Background: When clinicians need to administer a vasopressor infusion, they are faced with the choice of administration via either peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) or central venous catheter (CVC). Vasopressor infusions have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVC) rather than Peripheral Intra Venous Catheters (PIVC), primarily due to concerns of extravasation and resultant tissue injury. This practice is not guided by contemporary randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Observational data suggests safety of vasopressor infusion via PIVC. To address this evidence gap, we have designed the “Vasopressors Infused via Peripheral or Central Access” (VIPCA) RCT. Methods: The VIPCA trial is a single-centre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT. Eligible critically ill patients requiring a vasopressor infusion will be identified by emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) staff and randomised to receive vasopressor infusion via either PIVC or CVC. Primary outcome is feasibility, a composite of recruitment rate, proportion of eligible patients randomised, protocol fidelity, retention and missing data. Primary clinical outcome is days alive and out of hospital up to day-30. Secondary outcomes will include safety and other clinical outcomes, and process and cost measures. Specific aspects of safety related to vasopressor infusions such as extravasation, leakage, device failure, tissue injury and infection will be assessed. Discussion: VIPCA is a feasibility RCT whose outcomes will inform the feasibility and design of a multicentre Phase-3 trial comparing routes of vasopressor delivery. The exploratory economic analysis will provide input data for the full health economic analysis which will accompany any future Phase-3 RCT.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacey Watts & Yogesh Apte & Thomas Holland & April Hatt & Alison Craswell & Frances Lin & Alexis Tabah & Robert Ware & Joshua Byrnes & Christopher Anstey & Gerben Keijzers & Mahesh Ramanan, 2024. "Randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressor infusion administered via peripheral cannula versus central venous catheter for critically ill adults: A study protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295347
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295347
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295347&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.