Comparison of the Quality of Life of Patients with Breast or Colon Cancer with an Arm Vein Port (TIVAD) Versus a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)

Abstract

Introduction: Venous access is a crucial element in chemotherapy delivery. It remains unclear whether cancer patients prefer a port to a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Our study aimed to assess cancer patients’ satisfaction with their venous access device and to compare the quality of life (QoL) of subjects with a PICC to those with a port. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, EORTC QLQ-C30, and a locally developed quality of life survey (QLAVD), designed to assess satisfaction with venous access devices, were administered to breast or colorectal cancer patients over a one-year period following the device insertion. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes on mean scores at different time points. Results: A total of 101 patients were recruited over a three-year period, (PICC group, n = 50; port group, n = 51). Survey response rates for months one and three were 72% and 48%, respectively. Overall, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in relation to EORTC QOL. At three months, the mean pain scores were 3.5 ± 2.3 for the port and 1.3 ± 0.75 for PICC (<0.001). The mean score for a negative effect of the venous access device on psychosocial well-being was 6.0 ± 4.1 for PICC and 3.0 ± 2.7 for the port (p = 0.005). Complications related to PICCs occurred in 38% patients versus 41% with a port (p > 0.24). Conclusions: Although subjects with a port experienced more pain during the device insertion or access for chemotherapy, it had a smaller negative impact on psychosocial scores than the PICC. No significant differences in complications rates were observed between the two devices.

Peripherally inserted central catheter securement with cyanoacrylate glue and bloodstream infection: A retrospective cohort study

“…Classically, a vascular access route was secured via the subclavian or internal jugular vein. However, in recent years, PICC insertion through the upper arm has been selected because it is less likely to cause catheter infection and is superior in terms of safety and patient quality of life 20–22 . Regarding catheter management, sutureless fixation is used to prevent catheter infection 23 ; however, inadequate fixation can lead to migration of the catheter tip.…”

“…Chest radiographs were obtained during the course of treatment in 279 cases: 110 (69.6%) in the CG group and 169 (66.8%) in the control group; selected because it is less likely to cause catheter infection and is superior in terms of safety and patient quality of life. [20][21][22] Regarding catheter management, sutureless fixation is used to prevent catheter infection 23 ; however, inadequate fixation can lead to migration of the catheter tip. Our findings indicate that the use of CG reduced the risk of catheter tip migration and catheter removal for suspected catheter infection.…”

Accidental venous port placement via the persistent left superior vena cava: Two case reports

“…Second, the use of PICC rarely restricts the daily activities of patients. Moreover, PICC can be easily used and maintained over extended periods, which can protect the patients' privacy and improve their quality of life[ 7 ].…”

Benefits of an online multimodal nursing program among patients with peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis

“…PICC maintenance and anticoagulant therapy also bring many difficulties and challenges to patients ( 22 ). In addition, patients may suffer from discrimination because of the conspicuous presence of devices and dressings on upper limbs ( 23 ). Various factors can lead to poor quality of life and great psychological distress in patients.…”