TY - JOUR
T1 - 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
AU - Patel, G
AU - Jain, K
AU - Kumar, R
AU - Strickland, A
AU - Pellegrini, L
AU - Slavotinek, John
AU - Eaton, Michael
AU - McLeay, William
AU - Price, Timothy
AU - Ly, M
AU - Ullah, Shahid
AU - Koczwara, Bogda
AU - Kichenadasse, Ganessan
AU - Karapetis, Christos
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - Purpose: Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies. Methods: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications. Results: Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09-0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms. Conclusions: Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.
AB - Purpose: Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies. Methods: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications. Results: Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09-0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms. Conclusions: Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.
KW - Central venous catheter
KW - Complication
KW - Cost
KW - Non-haematological malignancy/cancer
KW - Peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC)
KW - Port
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890457002&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1
DO - 10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1
M3 - Article
SN - 0941-4355
VL - 22
SP - 121
EP - 128
JO - Supportive Care in Cancer
JF - Supportive Care in Cancer
IS - 1
ER -