Vascular access devices (VADs), including peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) remain a cornerstone for the delivery of necessary intravenous therapy. PICCs are being selected for venous access more frequently today than ever before.~The advantage of PICC is that it can be used for all intravenous therapy. However, PICC requires the use of fluoroscopy or other type of guidance which add to the cost and time required to insert the catheter. Midline, on the other hand, can be inserted under ultrasound guidance, takes less time to be inserted and cost less than PICC insertion.~Despite lower cost and better accessibility of midline in comparison with PICC for non-vesicant intravenous therapy, there is very little evidence in the literature to suggest that one type of venous access is better than the other.~The primary objective of this study is to assess the non-inferiority for safety and efficacy of using Midline in comparison with PICC for intravenous therapy that do not require a central catheter.~Results of this trial will allow improving a quality of evidence for using midline instead of PICC for specified indications. If Midline are non-inferior for some indications, they would represent a more accessible and less expensive alternative than PICC insertion.
The purpose of this study is to assess the non-inferiority for safety and efficacy of using Midline in comparison with PICC for intravenous therapy that do not require a central catheter.