A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Novel Dressing and Securement Techniques in 101 Pediatric Patients

Purpose

To evaluate feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) dressing and securement techniques to prevent complications and failure.

Materials and Methods

This pilot, 3-armed, randomized controlled trial was undertaken at Royal Children’s Hospital and Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, between April 2014 and September 2015. Pediatric participants (N = 101; age range, 0–18 y) were assigned to standard care (bordered polyurethane BPU] dressing, sutureless securement device), tissue adhesive (TA) (plus BPU dressing), or integrated securement dressings (ISDs). Average PICC dwell time was 8.1 days (range, 0.2–27.7 d). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were PICC complications, dressing performance, and parent and staff satisfaction.

Results

Protocol feasibility was established. PICC failure was 6% (2/32) with standard care, 6% (2/31) with ISD, and 3% (1/32) with TA. PICC complications were 16% across all groups. TA provided immediate postoperative hemostasis, prolonging the first dressing change until 5.5 days compared with 3.5 days and 2.5 days with standard care and ISD respectively. Bleeding was the most common reason for first dressing change: standard care (n = 18; 75%), ISD (n = 11; 69%), TA (n = 4; 27%). Parental satisfaction (median 9.7/10; P = .006) and staff feedback (9.2/10; P = .002) were most positive for ISD.

Conclusions

This research suggests safety and acceptability of different securement dressings compared with standard care; securement dressings may also reduce dressing changes after insertion. Further research is required to confirm clinically cost-effective methods to prevent PICC failure.