Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial

Central venous catheter–associated complications in pediatric patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma: implications for catheter choice

“…The results of this study suggest that single lumen PICCs are associated with much higher complication rates (49% vs. 26%; IRR 5.12), early removal (18% vs. 7%; IRR 9.96), and more severe complications (19% vs. 7%; IRR 11.96) when compared to TIVAPs. The high rate of complications associated with PICCs has also been previously reported in a variety of patient populations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. In this study, the incidence rate of local irritation/infections and CVC-related CVTs specifically was higher in patients receiving single lumen PICCs compared to TIVAPs (26% vs. 7%; IRR 14.95 and 12% vs. 7%; IRR 6.98, respectively), suggesting that TIVAPs are more suitable for this patient group compared to PICCs in terms of CVC-related complications and the risk of early removal.…”

“…However, general anesthesia is needed for insertion, sedation for removal, percutaneous punctures to access the port, and a larger scar will remain visible after removal, whereas these disadvantages do not apply to PICCs. On the other hand, higher incidence rates of mechanical failure, CVC-related infections, and CVC-related central venous thrombosis (CVT) have been associated with PICCs when compared to other CVC-types in a variety of adult and pediatric patients (i.e., oncology, intensive care unit, total parenteral nutrition) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. However, the incidence of all CVC-related complications for patients with HL specifically has not been described previously.…”

Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first‐line treatment for patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma

“…2,5,8 Among these studies, the CAVA trial included patients with haematological malignancies, although in smaller numbers, which did not enable the authors to identify the preferred device in this group. 8 Additionally, it has been shown that despite a lower apparent cost associated with PICCs, the cost from a health care perspective is higher in cancer patients who receive a PICC than in those who receive a PORT, and discomfort is more frequently reported in the middle or at the end of treatment. 5,26 The comparison of the two device types is difficult to conduct, with studies that are either retrospective with limits inherent to the type of study, or randomised trials that in this context are often characterised by a high refusal rate (~50%), which suggest that patients who enrol in prospective trials are not necessarily representative.…”

Heparinized anticoagulant coatings based on polyphenol-amine inspired chemistry for blood-contacting catheters

“…Blood-contacting catheters such as central venous catheters (CVCs) have become an integral part of modern clinical applications in the treatment of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. 1,2 In U.S. hospitals, about 5 million CVCs and 300 million peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are used annually. 3 However, as traumatic medical devices, complications caused by these catheters are inevitable, among which surface-induced thrombosis remains a severe threat to treatment outcome and patient safety.…”