Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Wu, Shanshan; Li, Wanjiao; Zhang, Qiongxiao; Li, Shuting; Wang, Lizi

doi:10.1111/jan.13766

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinical nursing pathway had also achieved good results in the nursing of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage [ 24 ]. Evidence based nursing was based on science, aiming at the detailed problems found in the process of nursing practice, making nursing decisions, and guiding clinical nursing work by querying and collecting materials [ 25 ]. Using the concept of evidence-based medicine in nursing work could better expand the thinking of nurses so as to carry out nursing work more scientifically and reasonably.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Clinical Nursing Pathway Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Medicine on Venous Thrombosis in Long-Term Bedridden Patients

Chen

Wen

Lin

et al. 2022

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Venous thrombosis is a type of medical condition that establishes as deep vein thrombosis of the limb or pulmonary embolism. This disease arises as a result of interrelating hereditary, ecological, and interactive risk aspects. Clinical nursing pathways also known as critical pathways are pathways that guide nurses when developing a patient’s care plan. However, the effect of nursing intervention on venous thrombosis in long-term bedridden patients from the perspective of evidence-based medicine had not been reported. Methods. A total of 170 patients hospitalized in the hospital from January 2021 to October 2021 were selected, and the bed time was more than 2 weeks. The patients were randomly divided into the control group and observation group. 85 cases in the control group received routine nursing in cardiology, and 85 cases in the observation group received clinical nursing pathway. Venous thrombosis, lower limb pain, swelling, D-dimer level, hemodynamic parameters, and nursing satisfaction were compared in two groups. Results. The incidence of deep venous thrombosis in the observation group was 8.2%, lower than 24.7% in the control group ( P < 0.05). The incidence of lower limb pain and elevated D-dimer in the observation group was lower than that in the control group ( P < 0.05). The improvement of hemodynamic parameters such as SBP, DBP, CBV, PR, CI, and CO in the study group was better than that in the control group ( P < 0.05). The satisfaction of the observation group was 90.58%, which was higher than that of the control group (82.35%) ( P < 0.05). Conclusion. Clinical nursing pathway can improve patients’ nursing efficiency, improve the treatment effect, shorten hospital stay, and improve nursing satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Clinical Nursing Pathway Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Medicine on Venous Thrombosis in Long-Term Bedridden Patients

Chen

Wen

Lin

et al. 2022

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although chest ports inserted via internal jugular vein or subclavian vein are considered optimal, other insertion sites such as upper arm to decrease catheter-related complications have also been explored [31,32]. Peripheral arm ports are comparable to the chest ports in arterial injury and have a prominent advantage of less pneumothorax [33]. Due to safety and cost-effectiveness related to bedside insertion, arm ports have been increasingly applied over recent years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liu

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Design and Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. Eligibility Criteria. Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity. Results. There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (RR = 2.23, P=0.041) as well as pooled comparative and single-arm studies (RR = 1.21, P=0.029). Conclusions. This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.

show abstract

“…Chest ports showed the most excellent results in terms of complication rates and catheter indwelling time. A previous study suggested that peripheral arm ports were comparable to chest ports in arterial injuries and had the prominent advantage of less pneumothorax [23]. Since we used ultrasound guidance in all cases, we did not encounter arterial injury or pneumothorax.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 93%

Tailored approach to the choice of long-term vascular access in breast cancer patients

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the possible options for vascular access in breast cancer patients by analyzing the complications of each method. We retrospectively evaluated the vascular access procedures for intravenous chemotherapy in breast cancer patients from 2016 to 2018. A total of 300 consecutive patients were included, 100 each who received peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), arm ports, and chest ports. When selecting a catheter, a PICC was considered when four cycles of chemotherapy were expected. Otherwise, patient preference was considered. All but one patient with an arm port were women, with mean age of 51.7 ± 9.1 years. The total mean complication-free catheter indwelling time was 1357.6 days for chest ports, 997.8 days for arm ports, and 366.8 days for PICCs (p = 0.004). There were 11 catheter-related complications (3.7%), one in a chest port patient, five in arm port patients, and eight in PICC patients. There was no patient with catheter related blood stream infection or deep vein thrombosis. All three types of catheters could be used in breast cancer patients without causing serious complications. The selection of catheter considering the clinical situation was effective for providing a safe and secure chemotherapy delivery route.

show abstract

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta‐analysis

Abstract: Arm ports are a safe option beside chest ports for adult patients with malignancy, especially in patients with head-neck cancer or breast cancer. Patients should be well informed of the advantages and disadvantages of different vascular access devices and provided a choice.

Cited by 12 publications

References 36 publications

Effect of Clinical Nursing Pathway Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Medicine on Venous Thrombosis in Long-Term Bedridden Patients

Effect of Clinical Nursing Pathway Intervention Based on Evidence-Based Medicine on Venous Thrombosis in Long-Term Bedridden Patients

Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tailored approach to the choice of long-term vascular access in breast cancer patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About