UNLABELLED: A multicentric clinical trial was performed to evaluate two routes of access for implantable subcutaneous central venous devices: by way of the subclavian vein (group A) and peripheral access by way of the veins of the flexion side of the elbow (group B). The indications for implantation were: antineoplastic treatment of solid tumors, myelo- and lymphoproliferative syndromes, antiviral treatment, and parenteral nutrition at home. The study was composed of 87 patients, 48 men and 39 women, with a mean age of 57.1 years (SD = 12.6). Group A was made up of 48 patients, and group B of 39. RESULTS:Implantation failure was 8.3% in group A and 5.1% in group B (p = n.s.). Complications of implantation were 23.4% in group A and 15.4% in group B (p = n.s.). The complications of permanence were diagnosed at 27.6% in group A and at 15.4% in group B (p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: We have not been able to find significant differences between the two groups, probably due to the fact that the series is still short. Nevertheless, the manageability, comfort for the nursing staff and for the patients, appears to be greater with the devices implanted in the infraclavicular region, by means of a subclavian vein puncture.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: A multicentric clinical trial was performed to evaluate two routes of access for implantable subcutaneous central venous devices: by way of the subclavian vein (group A) and peripheral access by way of the veins of the flexion side of the elbow (group B). The indications for implantation were: antineoplastic treatment of solid tumors, myelo- and lymphoproliferative syndromes, antiviral treatment, and parenteral nutrition at home. The study was composed of 87 patients, 48 men and 39 women, with a mean age of 57.1 years (SD = 12.6). Group A was made up of 48 patients, and group B of 39. RESULTS:Implantation failure was 8.3% in group A and 5.1% in group B (p = n.s.). Complications of implantation were 23.4% in group A and 15.4% in group B (p = n.s.). The complications of permanence were diagnosed at 27.6% in group A and at 15.4% in group B (p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: We have not been able to find significant differences between the two groups, probably due to the fact that the series is still short. Nevertheless, the manageability, comfort for the nursing staff and for the patients, appears to be greater with the devices implanted in the infraclavicular region, by means of a subclavian vein puncture.