PREVAIL study - PREVenting infection using Antimicrobial Impregnated Long lines
| ISRCTN | ISRCTN81931394 |
|---|---|
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN81931394 |
| Protocol serial number | HTA 12/167/02; 12EB13 |
| Sponsor | Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (UK) |
| Funder | NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme - HTA (UK) |
- Submission date
- 13/11/2014
- Registration date
- 21/11/2014
- Last edited
- 02/05/2019
- Recruitment status
- No longer recruiting
- Overall study status
- Completed
- Condition category
- Neonatal Diseases
Plain English summary of protocol
Background and study aims
A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) is a long, thin tube that goes into a vein in the upper arm. Babies in neonatal units often need to take medicines and fluids through PICCs for a long time. PICCs are inserted in order to avoid the need for repeated painful procedures and can stay in place for several weeks. However, very occasionally these PICCs can cause infections in the blood. There are currently two types of PICCs available. One type is coated with an antibiotic and an antifungal which might prevent infection by killing bacteria (AM-PICC), and the other type is not (a standard PICC). Although both are available, currently hospitals tend to use the standard PICC (S-PICC). We are currently investigating antimicrobial catheters in children, however, we also need to find out which catheter (PICC) is better in babies or if there is no difference between them. The study will help hospitals to decide which type of PICC to use for babies admitted to neonatal intensive care in the future.
Who can participate?
Babies who require the narrowest PICC.
What does the study involve?
Participating babies will be randomly allocated to be treated with either an AM-PICC or a S-PICC. The study will follow your baby using routine records and will use infection results from samples that need to be taken as part of your baby's routine clinical care. When your baby's PICC is removed, we will also test the tip for bacteria. Information will also be collected from the babies' hospital admission up till 6 months after they have entered the study.
What are the possible benefits and risks of participating?
Both PICCs are CE marked for use in babies which means they comply with EU legislation. Currently normal practise in hospitals is to use the standard PICCs; however, there is no evidence to support that these are better or worse than AM-PICC. For all PICCs there is a small risk that they may become infected and cause an infection in the blood. By using the antimicrobial PICCs this risk of infection may decrease. As the antimicrobial PICCs do contain a tiny amount of antibiotic and antifungal, there is a potential that instead of being beneficial they could be problematic. However, the main foreseeable disadvantage, that bacteria/fungi might become resistant to the antibiotic/antifungal, is very unlikely indeed to have any impact on a baby's care.
Where is the study run from?
The study will be run from 18 neonatal units in the UK. The lead centre will be Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The study will be co-ordinated through the Medicines for Children Clinical Trials Unit, University of Liverpool.
When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
The study will run from December 2014 until August 2017.
Who is funding the study?
NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme - HTA (UK).
Who is the main contact?
Professor Ruth Gilbert and Dr Sam Oddie
prevail@liverpool.ac.uk
Contact information
Scientific
MRC Centre of Epidemiology for Child Health
UCL Institute of Child Health
30 Guilford Street
London
WC1N 1EH
United Kingdom
| r.gilbert@ucl.ac.uk |
Study information
| Primary study design | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Study design | Unblinded two-arm randomised controlled trial |
| Secondary study design | Randomised controlled trial |
| Scientific title | An unblinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial impregnated (with rifampicin and miconazole) long lines (termed peripherally inserted central venous catheters, or AM-PICC) compared with standard PICC (S-PICC) for reducing blood stream infection (BSI) |
| Study acronym | PREVAIL |
| Study objectives | The overall aim of the study is to determine whether AM-PICC should be introduced across the NHS for preterm babies. In very preterm infants, does the use of antimicrobial impregnated PICC, compared to standard PICC, reduce blood stream infection and is it cost effective? More details can be found at http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1216702 |
| Ethics approval(s) | NRES Committee -Yorkshire & The Humber - Sheffield, 31/10/2014, Ref: 14/YH/1202 |
| Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied | Infectious disease, preterm babies requiring a PICC |
| Intervention | 1. Antimicrobial impregnated (with rifampicin and miconazole) peripherally inserted central venous catheters (AM-PICC) 2. Standard PICC (S-PICC) |
| Intervention type | Device |
| Phase | |
| Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s) | |
| Primary outcome measure(s) |
Time to first blood stream infection based on a positive blood culture (including fungal BSI) taken between 24 hours after randomisation until 48 hours after removal. |
| Key secondary outcome measure(s) |
1. Rifampicin or miconazole resistance in any isolate from blood culture |
| Completion date | 31/08/2017 |
Eligibility
| Participant type(s) | Patient |
|---|---|
| Age group | Neonate |
| Sex | All |
| Target sample size at registration | 858 |
| Total final enrolment | 861 |
| Key inclusion criteria | 1. Babies who require a PICC (Premicath 1 Fr) 2. Admitted to a NNU that is recruiting for this trial 3. Parent/legal representative of the baby gives informed written consent for the trial Note: Babies with the following can be included in the trial: 1. Congenital malformations 2. Gastrointestinal surgical conditions 3. Previous PICC (non-trial PICC) 4. Previously treated BSI which has resolved in the opinion of the Investigator |
| Key exclusion criteria | 1. Baby has been previously entered into this trial 2. Baby has a known allergy or hypersensitivity to rifampicin or miconazole |
| Date of first enrolment | 01/06/2015 |
| Date of final enrolment | 31/05/2017 |
Locations
Countries of recruitment
- United Kingdom
- England
Study participating centres
B15 2TG
United Kingdom
BD9 6RJ
United Kingdom
E9 6SR
United Kingdom
OX3 9DU
United Kingdom
LS1 3EX
United Kingdom
LE1 5WW
United Kingdom
L8 7SS
United Kingdom
E13 8SL
United Kingdom
NG5 1PB
United Kingdom
NG7 2UH
United Kingdom
RM7 0AG
United Kingdom
BL4 0JR
United Kingdom
OL1 2JH
United Kingdom
PR2 9HT
United Kingdom
M13 0JH
United Kingdom
BS2 8EG
United Kingdom
S10 2SF
United Kingdom
E1 1BB
United Kingdom
Results and Publications
| Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to share | No |
|---|---|
| IPD sharing plan summary | Not expected to be made available |
| IPD sharing plan |
Study outputs
| Output type | Details | Date created | Date added | Peer reviewed? | Patient-facing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results article | results | 01/06/2019 | 02/05/2019 | Yes | No |
| HRA research summary | 28/06/2023 | No | No | ||
| Study website | Study website | 11/11/2025 | 11/11/2025 | No | Yes |
Editorial Notes
02/05/2019: The following changes were made to the trial record:
1. Publication reference added.
2. The total final enrolment was added.