PICNIC (hydrophobic vs. polyurethane PICC)
Trial question
What is the effect of hydrophobic peripherally inserted central catheters for the prevention of device failure and complications?
Study design
Multi-center
Open label
RCT
Population
Characteristics of study participants
40.0% female
60.0% male
N = 733
733 patients (293 female, 440 male).
Inclusion criteria: adults and children referred for peripherally inserted central catheter placement.
Key exclusion criteria: current catheter-related bloodstream infection; thrombosis in vein where peripherally inserted central catheter is to be inserted; sensitivity to any of the study drug; admission due to COVID-19 infection.
Interventions
N=365 hydrophobic PICC (antit-hrombogenic peripherally inserted central catheter with pressure activated valve, 4-5 Fr [BioFlo™]).
N=368 standard PICC (polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter with external clamps, 4-5 Fr [PowerPICC™]).
Primary outcome
Device failure
5.9%
6.1%
6.1 %
4.6 %
3.0 %
1.5 %
0.0 %
Hydrophobic
PICC
Standard
PICC
No significant
difference ↔
No significant difference in device failure (5.9% vs. 6.1%; OR 0.96, 96% CI 0.51 to 1.78).
Secondary outcomes
No significant difference in complications from any cause (21.5% vs. 21.7%; OR 0.99, 99% CI 0.69 to 1.42).
Significant decrease in duration of peripherally inserted central catheter placement (26.1 days vs. 28.8 days; MD -2.7, 95% CI -5.3 to -0.2).
No significant difference in infectious complications (3.4% vs. 3.9%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.89).
Safety outcomes
No significant difference in adverse events.
Conclusion
In adults and children referred for peripherally inserted central catheter placement, hydrophobic PICC was not superior to standard PICC with respect to device failure.
Reference
Amanda J Ullman, Deanne August, Tricia M Kleidon et al. A Comparison of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Materials. N Engl J Med. 2025 Jan 9;392(2):161-172.
Open reference URL