Comparison of catheter-related infection risk in two different long-term venous devices in adult hematology-oncology patients

Abstract

In the present study, the infection risk was lower in completely implanted devices than in partially implanted ones.

Groshong or implanted catheter infections in ambulatory haematological patients

“…The rates encountered in the study are comparable to those found in the literature for this type of outpatient. In 2004 [8], the results published by Pracchia et al were comparable, showing an even larger difference in infection rates between the two types of catheters and infection rates comparable to those observed in this study. Implantable ports presented an infection-free survival rate of 97% after 1 year, similar to this study.…”

“…The epidemiology of these infections has often been studied [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], but usually for hospitalised patients, followed in conventional units, or for paediatrics patients. So, few studies on ambulatory patients exist [8][9][10][11], in spite of the increasing numbers of haematological ambulatory patients.…”

Centrally Inserted External Catheters and Totally Implantable Ports for the Delivery of Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Device-Related Complications

“…In terms of observational studies, 11 prospective (including the Dillon et al RCT) [5,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and 15 retrospective studies [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] evaluated the use of venous catheters in different patient populations. 11 studies were in the adult population [14,[23][24][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], of which 4 recruited only gynaecological patients [25,26,30,34], 13 were performed in children (age B21 years) [7, 12, 13, 15-22, 35, 36], and 1 was performed in a mixed population (age 3-78 years); for the purpose of analysis, this study population was defined as adult [27]. Devices were inserted exclusively by surgeons in ten studies [12,…”

“…11 studies were in the adult population [14,[23][24][25][26][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], of which 4 recruited only gynaecological patients [25,26,30,34], 13 were performed in children (age B21 years) [7, 12, 13, 15-22, 35, 36], and 1 was performed in a mixed population (age 3-78 years); for the purpose of analysis, this study population was defined as adult [27]. Devices were inserted exclusively by surgeons in ten studies [12,20,23,24,28,29,32,33,35,36], by surgeons or radiologists in two studies [22,31], and by an oncologist or attending physician in 3 studies [25,26,34]. The primary outcomes of all of the studies were catheter-associated complications and complications leading to device removal with a particular emphasis on infection.…”

In the october 2004 issue of Clínicas

“…PRACCHIA LF et al 11 compared frequency and probability of catheterrelated infection for two types of longterm intravenous devices in 96 adult hematology-oncology patients: partially (n = 55) or completely implanted devices (n = 42). Infection risk was found to be significantly lower in completely implanted devices as compared to partially implanted ones.…”