Evidence mapPaperPMID 42186074Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026

An international randomised controlled trial of a novel antimicrobial dressing for peripheral intravenous catheters (ProP trial).

Bertrand Drugeon, Daner L Ball, Tricia M Kleidon, Catherine O'Brien, Gabor Mihala, Nicole Marsh, Amanda Ullman, Amanda Corley, Jessica A Schults, Jérémy Guenezan and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05741866 (Protect PIVCs), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05741866 nacompletednot on this map

Protect PIVCs: An Adaptive Randomized Controlled Trial of a Novel Antimicrobial Dressing in Peripheral Intravenous Catheters (PIVCs).

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of QueenslandRan2023 to 2024Enrolled300ConditionsVascular Access Complication, Device Related Infection, Device Related Sepsis, Device Site ReactionsArmsChlorhexidine gluconate impregnated bordered polyurethane dressing, Standard bordered polyurethane dressing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Bertrand DrugeonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Daner L BallSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Tricia M KleidonAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Catherine O'BrienAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Gabor MihalaAustralasian Kidney Trials Network, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia.
Nicole MarshSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Amanda UllmanAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Amanda CorleyAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Jessica A SchultsSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Jérémy GuenezanCHU de Poitiers, Emergency Department and Prehospital Care, Poitiers, France.
Kate McCarthyDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Sabrina SeguinCHU de Poitiers, Emergency Department and Prehospital Care, Poitiers, France.
Guillaume BatiotCHU de Poitiers, Emergency Department and Prehospital Care, Poitiers, France.
Joshua ByrnesAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia.
Thiago Lopes SilvaSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Olivier MimozAlliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research, Schools of Nursing and Midwifery, and Pharmacy and Medical Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia. olivier.mimoz@chu-poitiers.fr.
Claire M RickardSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The Frazer Institute, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia. c.rickard@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are extensively used in hospitals worldwide and frequently associated with complications. Phlebitis is a common complication and may indicate infection, while infectious events, although uncommon, contribute to antimicrobial use and healthcare-associated infection. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings effectively prevent infections in central venous catheters but evidence for PIVC use is lacking. We assessed the feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of CHG-impregnated dressings for PIVCs.

methodsThe ProP trial was a multi-centre, open-label, two-arm, parallel adaptive randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Australia and France. Adult and paediatric patients in emergency and acute settings who were expected to require a PIVC for ≥48 hours were eligible. Randomisation was centralised (1:1 ratio; allocation concealed; stratified by site) to either a CHG-impregnated dressing or a standard polyurethane dressing. In Phase I, feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol fidelity, missing data and satisfaction, with exploratory analysis of clinical outcomes. Phase II was planned to definitively compare clinical outcomes (composite infectious complications of local infection, catheter tip colonisation, PIVC-related bloodstream infection (BSI), and/or phlebitis), however progression to Phase II depended on pre-defined Phase I feasibility criteria.

resultsBetween May 2023 and March 2024, 300 patients were enrolled at three hospitals. Most feasibility criteria achieved pre-specified targets including 92% recruitment, 99% retention, 99% protocol fidelity, 0% missing data, and >98% satisfaction for both participant and staff. However, eligibility was 76%, (<80% feasibility threshold), triggering trial cessation. Composite infectious complications and/or phlebitis occurred in 19% of control participants and 20% of the intervention participants. This included local infection (1% control; 0% intervention), PIVC-tip colonisation (3% control; 1% intervention), phlebitis (14% control; 18% intervention), and PIVC-BSI (none in either group). All adverse events were minor, and none required dressing removal.

conclusionThis study can inform the design of a definitive trial to assess the clinical and economic effectiveness of CHG-impregnated dressings for PIVCs, including refinement of the eligibility criteria and primary outcome.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05741866.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalBandagesCatheterization, PeripheralCatheter-Related InfectionsChlorhexidineAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidinechlorhexidine gluconateAntimicrobial dressingAntisepticsComplicationCostsHealthcare-associated infectionPeripheral Venous CatheterPhlebitisSafety

Identifiers

PMID42186074
PMCPMC13393854

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.