Literature DB >> 17517500

A comparison of Hickman line- and Port-a-Cath-associated complications in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy.

F Ng1, H Mastoroudes, E Paul, N Davies, J Tibballs, D Hochhauser, A Mayer, R Begent, T Meyer.   

Abstract

AIMS: To compare the complication rates of Hickman lines and Port-a-Caths in patients undergoing infusional chemotherapy for solid tumours.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single institution retrospective analysis comparing complication rates for 30 Hickman lines and 33 Port-a-Caths inserted for chemotherapy in adults with solid tumours was carried out.
RESULTS: Patients were well matched in terms of primary site and chemotherapy regimen. In both cases, over 85% were inserted radiologically under local anaesthetic. The total time in situ for Hickman lines and Port-a-Caths was 3539 days (median 83, range 6-585) and 5783 days (median 158, range 20-456), respectively. The complication rate for Hickman lines was 5.09/1000 catheter days, almost five times that for Port-a-Caths, with 1.04/1000 catheter days, a relative risk of 4.9 (confidence interval: 1.9-15.1, P=0.0003). Most (73%) complications occurred within 4 weeks of insertion. However, some arose much later: the range of time to complication was 1-304 days for Hickman lines and 1-132 days for Port-a-Caths. Infection was the most common complication, accounting for nine of 18 Hickman line complications and five of six Port-a-Cath complications, giving an overall infection rate of 2.54/1000 catheter days and 0.86/1000 catheter days, respectively. Additionally, Hickman lines had a 26% leakage rate or displacement rate, which did not occur at all in the Port-a-Cath group. Complications required the removal of 16 Hickman lines and five Port-a-Caths. The rate of removal was five times higher for Hickman lines (Hickman lines=4.52/1000 catheter days, Port-a-Caths=0.86/1000 catheter days, P=0.0027). Overall, the cost of Port-a-Caths was less than that of Hickman lines.
CONCLUSION: In this study, Port-a-Caths were shown to be both safer and cheaper than Hickman lines for patients requiring infusional chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17517500     DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2007.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  16 in total

1.  Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems.

Authors:  Ulf K M Teichgräber; Stephan Kausche; Sebastian N Nagel; Bernhard Gebauer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Prophylactic antibiotic guidelines in modern interventional radiology practice.

Authors:  Eunice Moon; Matthew D B S Tam; Raghid N Kikano; Karunakaravel Karuppasamy
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.513

3.  No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients' quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial.

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Franco Orsi; Simonetta Pozzi; Andrea Maldifassi; Davide Radice; Nicole Rotmensz; Maria Giulia Zampino; Nicola Fazio; Giulia Peruzzotti; Florence Didier
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 4.  Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology.

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Marcy
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A retrospective clinical study: complications of totally implanted central venous access ports.

Authors:  June Pill Seok; Young Jin Kim; Hyun Min Cho; Han Young Ryu; Wan Jin Hwang; Tae Yun Sung
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-02-05

Review 6.  Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports.

Authors:  Charlie C-T Hsu; Gigi N C Kwan; Hannah Evans-Barns; John A Rophael; Mieke L van Driel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-08-21

7.  Tunnelled central venous catheter-related problems in the early phase of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and effects on transplant outcome.

Authors:  Mahmut Yeral; Can Boğa; Levent Oğuzkurt; Hikmet Eda Alışkan; Hakan Özdoğu; Yusuf Ziya Demiroğlu
Journal:  Turk J Haematol       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 1.831

8.  Epidemiology and natural history of central venous access device use and infusion pump function in the NO16966 trial.

Authors:  E Chu; D Haller; T Cartwright; C Twelves; J Cassidy; W Sun; M W Saif; E McKenna; S Lee; H-J Schmoll
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  A case-control study to identify risk factors for totally implantable central venous port-related bloodstream infection.

Authors:  Guk Jin Lee; Sook Hee Hong; Sang Young Roh; Sa Rah Park; Myung Ah Lee; Hoo Geun Chun; Young Seon Hong; Jin Hyoung Kang; Sang Il Kim; Youn Jeong Kim; Ho Jong Chun; Jung Suk Oh
Journal:  Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 4.679

10.  Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

Authors:  Olivia Wu; Kathleen Boyd; Jim Paul; Elaine McCartney; Moira Ritchie; D Mellon; Linda Kelly; Judith Dixon-Hughes; Jon Moss
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.