Ullman, Amanda, August, Deanne, Kleidon, Tricia M., Walker, Rachel M., Marsh, Nicole, Bulmer, Andrew C., Pearch, Ben, Runnegar, Naomi, Leema, Joanne, Lee-Archer, Paul, Biles, Cathy, Gibson, Victoria, Royle, Ruth, Southam, Katrina, Byrnes, Joshua, Chopra, Vineet, Coulthard, Alan, Mollee, Peter, Rickard, Claire M., Harris, Patrick N.A., and Ware, Robert S. (2025) A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials. New England Journal of Medicine, 392 (2). pp. 161-172.

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only

Abstract

BACKGROUND New catheter materials for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reducethe risk of device failure due to infectious, thrombotic, and catheter occlusion events. However, data from randomized trials comparing these catheters are lacking.

METHODS We 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.

RESULTS A 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 in the standard-polyurethane group, and in the chlorhexidine group, and in 22 of 359 (6.1%) 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.

CONCLUSIONS Among 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.)

Item ID:	90889
Item Type:	Article (Research - C1)
ISSN:	1533-4406
Copyright Information:	Copyright © 2025 Massachusetts Medical Society
Funders:	National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC)
Projects and Grants:	NHMRC APP1157178
Date Deposited:	07 Apr 2026 23:42
FoR Codes:	42 HEALTH SCIENCES > 4299 Other health sciences > 429999 Other health sciences not elsewhere classified @ 100%
SEO Codes:	20 HEALTH > 2099 Other health > 209999 Other health not elsewhere classified @ 100%
Downloads:	Total: 1 Last 12 Months: 1
	More Statistics