Background: Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.
Methods: A systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Thirteen studies were included in this final meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that compared with PICC, TIVAP was associated with a higher first-puncture success rate (OR:2.028, 95%CI:1.25-3.289, P<0.05), a lower accidental removal rate (OR:0.447, 95%CI:0.225-0.889, P<0.05) and lower complication rates, including infection (OR:0.570, 95%CI: 0.383-0.850, P<0.05), occlusion (OR:0.172, 95%CI:0.092-0.324, P<0.05), malposition (OR:0.279, 95%CI:0.128-0.608, P<0.05), thrombosis (OR:0.191, 95%CI, 0.111-0.329, P<0.05), phlebitis (OR:0.102, 95%CI, 0.038-0.273, P<0.05), allergy (OR:0.155, 95%CI:0.035-0.696, P<0.05). However, no difference was found in catheter life span (P>0.05) and extravasation (P>0.05). Moreover, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use (weighted mean difference:3.132, 95%CI:2.434-3.83, P<0.05), but is much similar in 12 months use (P>0.05).
Conclusion: For the patients with non-hematological malignancies, TIVAP was superior to PICC in the data related to placement and the incidence of complications. Meanwhile, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use, but it is much similar in twelve-month use.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330915 | PMC |
| http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255473 | PLOS |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Safety of Cryopreserved Stem Cell Infusion through a Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter.
Cancers (Basel)
February 2023
Department of General Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland.
The management of patients undergoing stem cell transplantation requires a multipurpose central venous catheter (CVC) to facilitate drug administration, parenteral nutrition, transfusion of blood products, and collection of blood samples. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) appear to meet these requirements but are rarely used for stem cell infusion. We aimed to retrospectively assess the safety and feasibility of stem cell infusion through PICC and to evaluate its impact on transplantation kinetics.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFApplicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
PLoS One
November 2021
Department of Geratic Surgery, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Background: Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.
Methods: A systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.
Safe use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for chemotherapy of solid malignancies in adult patients: A 1-year monocentric, prospectively-assessed, unselected cohort of 482 patients.
J Vasc Access
November 2021
Division of G-I Surgery, and PICC Team/Vascular Access Service, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milano, Italy.
Introduction: Aim of this study was to analyze the overall complication and failure rates of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs), in a 1-year consecutive unselected cohort of 482 adult patients, affected by non-hematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy.
Methods: Adult outpatients (aged 18-75 years), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, bearing solid tumors and candidates for intravenous chemotherapy were eligible for the study. Exclusion criteria were active infections, coagulopathy (defined as platelet count <50,000/μL and/or prothrombin time more than 18 s), life expectancy <6 months, or inability to give written informed consent.
Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial.
Br J Anaesth
June 2019
University of Linköping, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden.
Background: Centrally inserted totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used for the administration of chemotherapy. Our aim was to study the incidence of catheter-related deep venous thrombosis in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy through either a PICC or a PORT.
Methods: Adults with non-haematological cancer (mainly breast and colorectal) from two Swedish oncology centres were included and followed for up to 1 yr.
Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies.
Support Care Cancer
January 2014
Department of Medical Oncology, Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders Medical Centre/Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia,
Purpose: Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
Methods: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!