Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Our aim was to compare the applications of totally implanted vascular access devices (TIVAD) and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in breast cancer patients.
We analyzed 4080 cases of TIVAD and 1433 cases of PICC at the Breast Center of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University. The success rate, operation time, and procedures of catheterization, as well as the catheterization-related complications, catheter indwelling-related complications, and the utilization conditions were compared between these two methods.
Our results showed that the success rate of catheterization was relatively higher in PICC group (99.5%) than the TIVAD group (99.0%)(χ2 = 3.521, P = 0.038), and the operation time and the rate of catheterization-related complications were lower in PICC (18.65 ± 4.7603 min, 0.91%) compared to TIVAD (29.55 ± 4.0843 min, 1.59%)(t = 38.000, P < 0.01, χ2 = 3.578, P = 0.035). However, the rate of catheter indwelling-related complications was lower in TIVAD group (2.47%) than the PICC group (3.62%)(χ2 = 5.227, P = 0.016), and the catheter care was also better in TIVAD.
Based on these analyses, we recommended TIVAD for the patients who need long-term and high-dose chemotherapy and PICC for the patients who need short chemotherapy cycle and live close to the hospital.
Singh KR, Agarwal G, Nanda G et al (2014) Morbidity of chemotherapy administration and satisfaction in breast cancer patients: a comparative study of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) versus peripheral venous access usage. World J Surg 38(5):1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2378-x CrossRef
Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH (1973) A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136(4):602–606
Johansson E, Hammarskjöld F, Lundberg D et al (2013) Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: a systematic review of the literature. Acta Oncol 52:886–892 CrossRef
Harter C, Ostendorf T, Bach A et al (2003) Peripherally inserted central catheter for autologous blood progenitor cell transplantation in patients with haema to logical malignancies. Support Care Cancer 11(12):790–794 CrossRef
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 17:811–818 CrossRef
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 119:1168–1174 CrossRef
Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R et al (2014) 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. Support Care Cancer 22(1):121–128 CrossRef
Liberale G, El Houkayem M, Viste C et al (2016) Evaluation of the perceptions and cosmetic satisfaction of breast cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) placement. Support Care Cancer 24(12):5035–5040 CrossRef
Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R (2008) Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J Clin 58:323–346 CrossRef
Sakamoto E, Hasegawa H, Komatsu S et al (2013) Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous port. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 40:613–616
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 35:241–246 CrossRef
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 42:29–34 CrossRef
Sideris LLY, 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
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
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) 15:342–347 CrossRef
Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J et al (2002) Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 20:3276–3281 CrossRef
Seckold T, Walker S, Dwyer T (2015) A comparison of silicone and polyurethane PICC lines and postinsertion complication rates: a systematic review. J Vasc Access 16(3):167–177 CrossRef
Tang Tian-Tian, Li Yun-Tao, Zhang Li-Na et al (2016) Handling measures for the implantable vascular access device to prevent of catheter fracture/disruption. Int J Clin Exp Med 9(2):3191–3196
Bertani L, Carone M, Caricati L et al (2016) Using the theory of planned behavior to explore hospital-based nurses’ intention to use peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): a survey study. Acta Biomed 87(4-s):23–29
Jie Chen, Hui Zhao, Zhijie Xia et al (2018) Knowledge, attitude, and practice toward the daily management of PICC in critically ill cancer patients discharged from intensive care units. Cancer Manag Res 10:1565–1574 CrossRef
- Which is Better for Patients with Breast Cancer: Totally Implanted Vascular Access Devices (TIVAD) or Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)?
- Springer International Publishing
World Journal of Surgery
Official Journal of the International Society of Surgery/Société Internationale de Chirurgie
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie
Mail Icon II