Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis incidence and risk factors in cancer patients: a double-center prospective investigation

Liu, Yuxiu; Gao, Yufang; Wei, Lili; Chen, Weifen; Ma, Xiaoyan; Song, Lei

doi:10.2147/tcrm.s73379

Cited by 40 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients with ports can conduct activities such as swimming and have more positivity in terms of body image than other CVCs 4. PICCs offer many advantages such as avoiding CVC placement-associated mechanical complications such as pneumothorax and hemorrhage, and the professional nurse PICC teams have made their use more accessible in oncology departments 5. In China, the NTCs in the internal jugular vein or subclavian vein cost less than other CVCs and are used when the chemotherapy process is short.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

Fang¹,

Jin²,

Song³

et al. 2017

PPA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCentral venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs).MethodsA double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups.ConclusionAlthough port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

Fang¹,

Jin²,

Song³

et al. 2017

PPA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth mentioning that a study on PICCs implantation in tumor patients has shown that the incidence of UEDVT ranges from 4% to 50%. 18,19 All twelve cases of CVCs' malfunction did not render the line ineffective, such as the impossibility of injection and/or aspiration, but had made them difficult. According to the"Catheter Injection and Aspiration" (CINAS) classification scheme, we scored 6 2IN1ASI catheters' malfunctions, 4 IN2ASI catheters' malfunctions and 2 catheters with a IN2AS2 malfunction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Central Venous Catheter Insertion in Colorectal Cancer Patients, PICC or PC?</p>

Yin¹,

Li²

2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been demonstrated as a feasible method for chemotherapy delivery in colorectal cancer patients. The objective of our study was to explore the preference of colorectal cancer patients (89%) in our institution for port catheters (PCs) through comparing the costs and complications between peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) and PCs. Methods: Overall, 777 colorectal cancer patients (89%) were eligible for central venous catheter (CVC) insertions from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2019. We retrospectively compared the costs and complications following the introduction of PICCs and PCs in the infusion of intravenous chemotherapy agents in patients with colorectal cancer. Results: A total of 773 colorectal patients were enrolled. The total cost of PICC and PC was US $436.20 and US $976, respectively. The complication rate was higher in the PICC compared with the PC group (45% versus 4%, P <0.001). The late complication rate of the two groups was particularly pronounced (52% versus 7%, p < 0.001). The incidence rate of total complications, that were developed in patients, with and without hemostatic prophylaxis, was 0.7% versus 5.7% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Port devices are associated with higher costs but fewer complications, compared to PICC in patients with colorectal cancer.

show abstract

“…The characteristics of them were listed in ( Supplementary Table 3 ). 7 studies compared PICC with CICC or Port ( n = 2872) [ 22 , 51 , 57 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 67 ], only 1 study involving mortality information [ 61 ], whereas 23 included studies which just displayed PICC without a comparison group ( n = 5824) [ 21 , 23 , 26 – 29 , 33 – 36 , 38 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 52 – 56 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 68 ]. 15 articles ( n = 6579) showed the details of CICC with pharmacological deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis compared with placebo or other drugs, such as heparin drugs, warfarin and other thrombolytic drugs [ 24 , 25 , 30 – 32 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 – 44 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 60 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our meta-analysis, 23 included studies about PICC without a comparison group ( n = 5824) were just displayed by a forest plot showing the pooled, unweighted frequency of patients with peripherally inserted central catheter venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can be seen in (Figure 2 ) [ 21 , 23 , 26 – 29 , 33 – 36 , 38 , 41 , 45 , 47 , 52 – 56 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 68 ]. For these studies, the unweighted frequency of vein thrombosis was 9.2% (536/5824), which is higher than the former reported result 4.48% (189/4223) related to non-tumor and tumor mixed populations [ 69 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk associated with central catheters for malignant tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hou

Pan

et al. 2018

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The risk of venous thrombosis and mortality associated with central catheter (PICC/CICC) for malignant tumor patients is not definite. So, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate it. Among patients with comparing PICC with CICC, odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was calculated with a random effect model meta-analysis. The result of the stratification analysis of 7 studies (PICC vs CICC) supported the theory that CICCs were associated with a decrease in the odds ratio of thrombosis compared with PICCs. 7 of 15 studies provided the information about the compared mortality rate of the patients. The result showed that CICCs were associated with a decrease in the odds ratio of thrombosis compared with PICCs (OR = 0.45, 95% CI:0.32–0.62, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%,Tau2 = 0.00). Meta-analysis of 8 studies of 2639 patients showed that pharmacological deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis drugs could decrease the risk of mortality of malignant tumor patients with CICCs (RR = 0.58, 95% CI:0.48–0.71, Z = 5.32, p < 0.0001, I2 = 71%). We found that PICCs are associated with a raised risk of deep vein thrombosis, and pharmacological deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis drugs is a beneficial factor in decreasing the incidence of thrombosis, while warfarin may decrease the risk of mortality of malignant tumor patients with CICCs.

show abstract

Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis incidence and risk factors in cancer patients: a double-center prospective investigation

Cited by 40 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

<p>Central Venous Catheter Insertion in Colorectal Cancer Patients, PICC or PC?</p>

Risk associated with central catheters for malignant tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About