Last reviewed · How we verify

NCT07394296: MIDRELAY

Study of the Prevalence of Midline Replacements and the Reasons for These Replacements

Recruiting now Last updated 10 February 2026
What this trial tests

trial in Veinous Access in 984 participants. Currently enrolling.

Timeline
2 December 2025
Primary endpoint
5 January 2027
5 January 2027

Quick facts

Lead sponsorCentre Hospitalier de Valenciennes
StatusRecruiting now
Study typeOBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment984
Start date2 December 2025
Primary completion5 January 2027
Estimated completion5 January 2027
Sites1 location across France

Conditions studied

Sponsor

Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes

Who can join

18 and older, any sex, with Veinous Access or Midline. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Sponsor's own description

Venous access management plays a key role in patient care and preserving their venous capital. The so-called "conventional" peripheral venous catheter is the most common venous access device, but it is associated with a high rate of complications, particularly in cases of prolonged use or poor venous capital. Recommendations, such as those from MAGIC or SF2H, advocate their use when the intended duration of use is 5 days or less. For longer periods or in cases of difficult access, so-called "central" devices such as PICC lines or central venous catheters are used, although they present specific risks such as CLASBI or deep vein thrombosis. In intermediate situations, the midline, a peripheral venous access device, is a relevant alternative, particularly for non-venotoxic intravenous treatments lasting more than 5 days. Although it is theoretically associated with fewer infections and complications than the PICCline, its complication rate and actual duration of use vary widely in the literature. The MAGIC recommendations suggest using them for periods of 14 days or less. The widespread use of midlines in healthcare facilities, and in particular the creation of vascular access units, has given rise to issues shared between centers, notably the replacement rate of these devices. The study therefore aims to determine the replacement and early removal rates for midlines, the circumstances in which they are replaced, and toassess the relevance of the 28-day limit in the choice of device, in order to improve practices and optimize the practitioner's initial decision.

Publications & conference data

No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial.

Verify or expand the search:

Other Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes trials

Trials by the same sponsor.

Verify against primary sources

Data sources for this page

Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT07394296.

Primary sources · FDA · ClinicalTrials.gov · EMA · SEC EDGAR · ChEMBL · Wikidata · full sourcing