16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Patient Preference and Adherence (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic process. Sign up for email alerts here.

      34,896 Monthly downloads/views I 2.314 Impact Factor I 3.8 CiteScore I 1.14 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.629 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Central 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).

          Methods

          A 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.

          Results

          There 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.

          Conclusion

          Although 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.

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). The magnitude of this risk relative to central venous catheters (CVCs) is unknown. To compare risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs. MEDLINE, CinAHL, Scopus, EmBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Full-text studies comparing the risk of CLABSI between PICCs and CVCs were included. Studies involving adults 18 years of age or older who underwent insertion of a PICC or a CVC and reported CLABSI were included in our analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Downs and Black scale for risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to generate summary estimates of CLABSI risk in patients with PICCs versus CVCs. Of 1,185 studies identified, 23 studies involving 57,250 patients met eligibility criteria. Twenty of 23 eligible studies reported the total number of CLABSI episodes in patients with PICCs and CVCs. Pooled meta-analyses of these studies revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than were CVCs (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94). Statistical heterogeneity prompted subgroup analysis, which demonstrated that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18-0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54-0.98]). Thirteen of the included 23 studies reported CLABSI per catheter-day. Within these studies, PICC-related CLABSI occurred as frequently as CLABSI from CVCs (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 0.91 [0.46-1.79]). Only 1 randomized trial met inclusion criteria. CLABSI definition and infection prevention strategies were variably reported. Few studies reported infections by catheter-days. Although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence.

              Over the last decades, many changes have occurred in oncology with new chemotherapy combinations and more complex application schemes becoming available. Central venous catheters and implantable venous port systems have become widely used and have facilitated the problem of vascular access. However, important complications are associated with permanent central venous catheters. This review summarizes evidence on venous port system use published in Medline up to February 2007. Moreover, recent guidelines for the prevention and management of catheter-related infections issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Critical Care Medicine, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology are included. Sterile precautions are essential when implanting and accessing port systems. Infections must be treated with adequate antimicrobial therapy. Catheter-related thromboembolic complications were found at a rate of 12-64% in retrospective studies. Five current clinical trials investigated the effect of prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin or warfarin in cancer patients with central venous devices. On the basis of these results, routine anticoagulation cannot be recommended. This article reviews the current literature on long-term complications of venous port systems, focusing on infection and thrombosis. In addition, it summarizes the evidence regarding routine maintenance of port systems in follow-up care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Patient Prefer Adherence
                Patient Prefer Adherence
                Patient Preference and Adherence
                Patient preference and adherence
                Dove Medical Press
                1177-889X
                2017
                12 July 2017
                : 11
                : 1197-1204
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology
                [2 ]Department of Oncology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang
                [3 ]Intensive Care Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao
                [4 ]Nursing College, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Yuxiu Liu, Nursing College, Weifang Medical University, No 7166 Baotong West Road, Weicheng District, Weifang 266001, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 186 6360 8162, Email 18663608162@ 123456163.com
                Article
                ppa-11-1197
                10.2147/PPA.S142556
                5513891
                28744109
                02dfee47-8ac2-4f7e-8d20-7eba97b3c711
                © 2017 Fang et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Medicine
                central venous catheter,port,peripherally inserted central catheter,external non-tunneled catheter,complication,cost,cancer patient

                Comments

                Comment on this article