nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2014 | Original Article

Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies

verfasst von: G. S. Patel, K. Jain, R. Kumar, A. H. Strickland, L. Pellegrini, J. Slavotinek, M. Eaton, W. McLeay, T. Price, M. Ly, S. Ullah, B. Koczwara, G. Kichenadasse, C. S. Karapetis

Erschienen in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.

Methods

Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.

Results

Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.

Conclusions

Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M et al (2000) Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2938–2947PubMed

Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD et al (2000) Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 355:1041–1047CrossRefPubMed

Findlay M, Cunningham D (1993) Chemotherapy of carcinoma of the stomach. Cancer Treat Rev 19:29–44CrossRefPubMed

Kappers-Klunne MC, Degener JE, Stijnen T, Abels J (1989) Complications from long-term indwelling central venous catheters in hematologic patients with special reference to infection. Cancer 64:1747–1752CrossRefPubMed

Worth LJ, Seymour JF, Slavin MA (2009) Infective and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancy: prospective evaluation of nontunneled devices. Support Care Cancer 17:811–818CrossRefPubMed

Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT et al (1993) Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 119:1168–1174CrossRefPubMed

Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS et al (2009) Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 15:4709–4714CrossRefPubMed

Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B et al (2009) An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:241–246CrossRefPubMed

Sawayama H, Hayashi N, Watanabe M et al (2012) The central vein access port and catheter in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective study of 101 patients. Surg Today 42:29–34CrossRefPubMed

10.

Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA (2002) Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 20:3276–3281CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sideris L LY, Barette G, et al. (2001) Long term central venous access for chemotherapy. PICC line by the radiologist or broviac by the surgeon? Eur J Cancer, 37: absract 1325.

12.

Last KMJ, Oakley C, Lofts F (1998) Long-term intravenous access devices: superiority of peripherally inserted central cannulae (PICC) over hickman catheters (HC). Ann Oncol 9:142

13.

Yap YS, Karapetis C, Lerose S et al (2006) Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 15:342–347CrossRef

14.

Webb A, Cunningham D, Scarffe JH et al (1997) Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:261–267PubMed

15.

Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2009) Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 20:935–940CrossRefPubMed

16.

Tesselaar ME, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy MA et al (2004) Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 40:2253–2259CrossRefPubMed

17.

Marnejon T, Angelo D, Abu Abdou A, Gemmel D (2012) Risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Access 13:231–238CrossRefPubMed

18.

Marinella MA, Kathula SK, Markert RJ (2000) Spectrum of upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community teaching hospital. Heart Lung 29:113–117CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pucheu A, Evans J, Thomas D et al (1994) Doppler ultrasonography of normal neck veins. J Clin Ultrasound 22:367–373CrossRefPubMed

20.

Lee AY (2002) Cancer and thromboembolic disease: pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev 28:137–140CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kinhult S, Albertsson M, Eskilsson J, Cwikiel M (2001) Antithrombotic treatment in protection against thrombogenic effects of 5-fluorouracil on vascular endothelium: a scanning microscopy evaluation. Scanning 23:1–8CrossRefPubMed

22.

Edwards RL, Klaus M, Matthews E et al (1990) Heparin abolishes the chemotherapy-induced increase in plasma fibrinopeptide A levels. Am J Med 89:25–28CrossRefPubMed

23.

Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S et al (2005) Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23:4057–4062CrossRefPubMed

24.

Couban S, Goodyear M, Burnell M et al (2005) Randomized placebo-controlled study of low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:4063–4069CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies
verfasst von: G. S. Patel
K. Jain
R. Kumar
A. H. Strickland
L. Pellegrini
J. Slavotinek
M. Eaton
W. McLeay
T. Price
M. Ly
S. Ullah
B. Koczwara
G. Kichenadasse
C. S. Karapetis
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies