Literature DB >> 20803038

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

Roberto Biffi1, Franco Orsi, Simonetta Pozzi, Andrea Maldifassi, Davide Radice, Nicole Rotmensz, Maria Giulia Zampino, Nicola Fazio, Giulia Peruzzotti, Florence Didier.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Though totally implantable access ports (TIAP) are extensively used, information from randomized trials about the impact of insertion site on patient's quality of life (QoL) and psychological distress is unavailable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred and three patients eligible for receiving intravenous chemotherapy for solid tumours were randomly assigned to implantation of a single type of TIAP, either through a percutaneous landmark access to the internal jugular or an ultrasound-guided access to the subclavian or a surgical cut-down access through the cephalic vein at the deltoid-pectoralis groove. Patients' QoL and psychological distress were investigated at regular intervals by means of EORTC QLQ-C30 and HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) questionnaires, using univariate and multivariate repeated measure linear mixed models. A post hoc analysis investigated the impact of type of administered chemotherapy (adjuvant vs palliative).
RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four patients (95.2%) were evaluable, 126 with the internal jugular, 132 with the subclavian and 126 with the cephalic vein access. The median follow-up was 361 days (range, 0-1,087). Mean score changes for the items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales were significantly associated with type of administered chemotherapy only (P < 0.001), and not with implantation site. Frequency distribution of patients with depression and anxiety score greater than 10 at HADS was not significantly different, with respect either to type of administered chemotherapy or TIAP implantation site.
CONCLUSION: Central venous insertion sites had no impact on patients' QoL and psychological distress. Patients undergoing palliative therapies showed worse EORTC QLQ-C30 scales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20803038     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-010-0984-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  29 in total

1.  Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

Authors:  David Osoba; Andrea Bezjak; Michael Brundage; Benny Zee; Dongsheng Tu; Joseph Pater
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 2.  Port navigation: let the journey begin.

Authors:  Penelope Arch
Journal:  Clin J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.027

3.  Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with venous access devices in outpatient oncology: a pilot study.

Authors:  C Chernecky
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 4.  Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence.

Authors:  S Vescia; A K Baumgärtner; V R Jacobs; M Kiechle-Bahat; A Rody; S Loibl; N Harbeck
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2007-09-09       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 5.  Nurse and patient satisfaction with three types of venous access devices.

Authors:  P Dearborn; J S De Muth; A B Requarth; S E Ward
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Patients' attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies.

Authors:  H Kreis; C R Loehberg; M P Lux; S Ackermann; W Lang; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days.

Authors:  R Biffi; F de Braud; F Orsi; S Pozzi; S Mauri; A Goldhirsch; F Nolè; B Andreoni
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports?

Authors:  Godelieve A Goossens; Marc Vrebos; Marguerite Stas; Ivo De Wever; Lutgarde Frederickx
Journal:  J Infus Nurs       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb

Review 9.  Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients.

Authors:  Melina Verso; Giancarlo Agnelli
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Marcy; Nicolas Magné; Pierre Castadot; Antoine Italiano; Nicolas Amoretti; Cédric Bailet; Franck Bentolila; Jean-Claude Gallard
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  8 in total

1.  Retrospective outcome analysis of rates and types of complications after 8654 minimally invasive radiological port implantations via the subclavian vein without ultrasound guidance.

Authors:  Karolin J Paprottka; Jana Voelklein; Tobias Waggershauser; Maximilian F Reiser; Philipp M Paprottka
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Evaluation of the perceptions and cosmetic satisfaction of breast cancer patients undergoing totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) placement.

Authors:  Gabriel Liberale; Michel El Houkayem; Claire Viste; Fikri Bouazza; Michel Moreau; Issam El Nakadi; Isabelle Veys
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 3.  Quantifying psychological distress among cancer patients in interventions and scales: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mei-Ling Yeh; Yu-Chu Chung; Man-Ying F Hsu; Chin-Che Hsu
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2014-03

Review 4.  Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved?

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Adriana Toro; Simonetta Pozzi; Isidoro Di Carlo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan.

Authors:  Masatoshi Shiono; Shin Takahashi; Masanobu Takahashi; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Chikashi Ishioka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Commentary on "Insertion of Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices by Surgeons" - What Is the Role of Surgeons When Implanting a Totally Implantable Venous Access Device to Prevent Immediate Complications?

Authors:  Adriana Toro; Gaetano Bertino; Annalisa Ardiri; Isidoro Di Carlo
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2015-08

Review 7.  Randomized controlled trials in central vascular access devices: A scoping review.

Authors:  Mari Takashima; Gillian Ray-Barruel; Amanda Ullman; Samantha Keogh; Claire M Rickard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Chinese expert consensus and practice guideline of totally implantable access port for digestive tract carcinomas.

Authors:  Ke-Cheng Zhang; Lin Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.