S Kulkarni1, O Wu, R Kasthuri, Jon G Moss. 1. Interventional Radiology Unit, Gartnavel General Hospital, 1053 Great Western Road, Glasgow, G12 0YN, UK, shubhangkulkarni@nhs.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risks of complications (infectious and non-infectious) including the need for device removal associated with centrally inserted external catheters compared with totally implantable ports in patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Relevant major electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2012. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies that compared centrally inserted external catheters with totally implantable ports in patients undergoing chemotherapy were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the odds ratios of device-associated complications, including infection, non-infectious complications and device removal associated with external catheters relative to implantable ports. RESULTS: Overall, five RCTs and 25 observational studies were included in the study. The studies were heterogeneous, and included adults and children, with different types of cancer, undergoing chemotherapy. Based on the pooled estimates from included studies, external catheters were associated with approximately a three to four-fold increase in the risks of infections, non-infectious complications and device removal compared implantable ports. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that totally implantable ports are superior to external catheters in terms of catheter-associated complications. However, a formal health technology assessment on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the use of implantable ports compared with external catheters is needed to inform policy makers of the relative value of investing in totally implantable devices compared with external catheters.
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risks of complications (infectious and non-infectious) including the need for device removal associated with centrally inserted external catheters compared with totally implantable ports in patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Relevant major electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2012. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies that compared centrally inserted external catheters with totally implantable ports in patients undergoing chemotherapy were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the odds ratios of device-associated complications, including infection, non-infectious complications and device removal associated with external catheters relative to implantable ports. RESULTS: Overall, five RCTs and 25 observational studies were included in the study. The studies were heterogeneous, and included adults and children, with different types of cancer, undergoing chemotherapy. Based on the pooled estimates from included studies, external catheters were associated with approximately a three to four-fold increase in the risks of infections, non-infectious complications and device removal compared implantable ports. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that totally implantable ports are superior to external catheters in terms of catheter-associated complications. However, a formal health technology assessment on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the use of implantable ports compared with external catheters is needed to inform policy makers of the relative value of investing in totally implantable devices compared with external catheters.
Authors: Melissa A Shenep; Mary R Tanner; Yilun Sun; Tina Culley; Randall T Hayden; Patricia M Flynn; Li Tang; Joshua Wolf Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 4.016