ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07182877COT-cannulaUpdated Feb 18, 2026

Comparison of Dwell Time of Open Versus Closed Type Peripheral Intravenous Cannula

An interventional study of Closed-type peripheral cannula and Open type peripheral cannula in Thrombophlebitis, sponsored by Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. Completed at 1 site in India. Open to participants aged 12 Years to 90 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-02-18.

Sponsored by Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
12 Years to 90 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Studies have shown that stabilisation devices are associated with fewer complications and lower failure rates in peripheral catheters.3,6,7 Although closed-system peripheral catheters offer potential advantages, such as reduced manipulation of components and minimised blood spillage, more research is needed to understand their impact on outcomes. The ability of peripheral catheters to remain functional and in place without complications is crucial. While various clinical factors influence peripheral catheter performance, the composition and structure of peripheral catheters also affect their dwell time, which is defined as the duration at which the catheter remains functional after insertion. A study by McNeill et al. found that during the preintervention phase, about 62% of open-system peripheral catheters lost IV access within 36 hours, with less than 10% remaining functional beyond 72 hours. The dwell time of closed-system peripheral catheters with a securement device increased to up to 96 hours during the intervention period.8

Read the detailed description

Peripheral catheters are the most frequently used medical devices in acute care settings, primarily for intravenous medication, fluid, and blood administration.1 However, their use is linked to various complications and risks, such as phlebitis, pain, infiltration, hematoma, occlusion, and more severe issues like bacteremia and sepsis.2 Studies indicate that the failure rate of peripheral catheters ranges between 35% and 50%, often due to dislodgment, infiltration, and other factors.2 These failures can lead to repeated venipunctures, increasing the risk of infection, pain, and potential damage to veins, all of which can impact patient comfort.

Advancements in the design and materials of peripheral catheters have improved their safety and comfort over time. These improvements include developing materials better suited for extended venous dwell time, mechanisms to prevent needle-related injuries, and securement devices, extension sets, stopcocks, and hubs. 3 The equipment needed for catheter insertion and maintenance varies, often consisting of multiple components that must be connected either before or after insertion. However, the manipulation of these components can introduce several issues. For instance, breaches in aseptic technique during this process can lead to the introduction of microbes into the patient's bloodstream, potentially causing insertion-related bacteremia. Previous studies have shown that Staphylococcus aureus is present in 7.6% to 23.5% of such cases.4,5 Catheter movement during manipulation can also result in dislodgment and loss of venous access. 3 One type of peripheral catheter, known as an open system, features a hub with an open end. These systems require additional components to complete the IV circuit, some of which are packaged separately. In open-system catheters, blood can flow out of the cannula and the open hub during venous access, leading to blood spillage and potential contamination. To address this, newer open-system catheters include features to prevent blood flow out of the hub after insertion, reducing the risk of blood spillage.

Another type of peripheral catheter is the closed system, which integrates an extension tube that contains blood flow within the circuit during cannulation. This design helps prevent blood spillage and needle-stick injuries. Closed-system peripheral catheters are self-contained units that do not require additional components for the IV circuit, reducing common points of contamination. Some closed-system peripheral catheters also include an integrated stabilisation platform to secure the catheter's position, which may help prevent dislodgment or injury to the vein.

Studies have shown that stabilisation devices are associated with fewer complications and lower failure rates in peripheral catheters.3,6,7 Although closed-system peripheral catheters offer potential advantages, such as reduced manipulation of components and minimised blood spillage, more research is needed to understand their impact on outcomes. The ability of peripheral catheters to remain functional and in place without complications is crucial. While various clinical factors influence peripheral catheter performance, the composition and structure of peripheral catheters also affect their dwell time, which is defined as the duration at which the catheter remains functional after insertion. A study by McNeill et al. found that during the preintervention phase, about 62% of open-system peripheral catheters lost IV access within 36 hours, with less than 10% remaining functional beyond 72 hours. The dwell time of closed-system peripheral catheters with a securement device increased to up to 96 hours during the intervention period.8

02

Conditions studied

  • Thrombophlebitis

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • IV cannula, thrombophlebitis
03

In context

Thrombophlebitis

15 studies on the registry are indexed under Thrombophlebitis; 2 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 100 is close to the median of 104 across 11 interventional studies indexed under Thrombophlebitis.

Browse Thrombophlebitis studies →

Lead sponsor

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh is the lead sponsor of 298 studies on the registry; 45 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
12 Years to 90 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • All patients admitted to the intensive care unit and requiring intravenous cannulation for dispensing drugs

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with peripheral catheters inserted elsewhere before RICU admission
  • Central venous catheters or other central vascular access devices
  • those with RICU stay \< 24 hours will be excluded from the study
  • Pregnancy
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
100 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Group 1

    Closed-type peripheral catheters

    Device: Closed-type peripheral cannula

  • Active comparator
    Group 2

    Open-type peripheral catheters

    Device: Open type peripheral cannula

Interventions

  • DeviceClosed-type peripheral cannula

    We will use closed-type peripheral catheters (BD Nexia Closed IV Catheter System.

    Also known as: Closed cannula

  • DeviceOpen type peripheral cannula

    We will use POLYMED Ultra Intravenous cannula in the control arm

    Also known as: Open cannula

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Dwell time

    Time till cannula is used for dispensing drugs

    Time frame: 28 days

  2. Dwell time

    The time for which intravenous cannula is kept for dispensing drugs

    Time frame: 28 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Catheter-related complications

    Complications attributed to the intravenous cannula

    Time frame: 28 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Respiratory ICU, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, PGIMER
    Chandigarh, 160012, India
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — IPD will be shared on reasonable request to the PI. The IPD will be shared for academic purposes and if the protocol is approved by the PI's IEC

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Ran from Oct 2025 to primary completion in Jan 2026, 3 months.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Sep 13, 2025
First posted
Sep 19, 2025
StartActual
Oct 1, 2025
Primary completionActual
Jan 1, 2026
CompletionActual
Jan 31, 2026
Last update
Feb 18, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 18, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07182877
Responsible party
Inderpaul singh (Associate Professor, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 19, 2025
Start date
Oct 1, 2025
Primary completion
Jan 1, 2026
Completion
Jan 31, 2026
Last update
Feb 18, 2026

Study contacts

Inderpaul S Sehgal, DM
principal investigator · PGIMER, Chandigarh

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion