Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients

Abstract

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implantable port catheters (IPCs) are 2 most common central venous access for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. However, no specific evidence exists to guide practitioners on safety and less cost. Objective To compare the differences of complications and costs of PICC and IPC in the treatment of cancer patients with chemotherapy and to provide a basis for better clinical decision making. Methods All the cohort studies were searched in the Cochrane Library, JBI, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science, CINAHL, CBM, and CNKI from inception to July 2018. Two reviewers screened and selected trials, evaluated quality, and extracted data. Meta-analysis and description of the outcomes were performed by using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 761 articles were retrieved, with 15 articles meeting eligibility criteria. Outcome analysis showed no difference in 1-puncture success rate. Peripherally inserted central catheter use was associated with higher complication rates than IPC, including occlusion, infection, malposition, catheter-related thrombosis, extravasation, phlebitis, and accidental removal rate. The life span of IPC was longer than that of PICC, and the costs of IPC were lower. Conclusions Implantable port catheter has advantages over PICC in reducing cancer patients’ complications and less cost in terms of long-term cancer chemotherapy. Implications for Practice In terms of safety, the results provide evidence for practitioners to choose which type of central venous catheters is better for cancer chemotherapy patients. In terms of costs, practitioners need to make decisions about which type of central venous catheters has less cost.

Intraoperative ipsilateral subclavian port catheter implantation in resectable breast cancer patients: A novel, safe, and convenient clinical practice

“…The incidence for PC-related infection is approximately 3-12%, 9,25 while that incidence for VTE is about 11-15% at 6 months. 14,26 In our study, our data show that incidence for major complications of intraoperative PC implantation is similar to conventional PC implantation.…”

“…and costs. 14,15 However, the insertion and removal of a PC are more invasive than PICC. Conventionally, a PC would be implanted percutaneously through the contralateral subclavian or internal jugular vein under local anesthesia a couple of days later after breast operation.…”

“…Compared with PICC, PC has been proved to be associated with lower risk of major complications (infection, thrombus, etc.) and costs 14,15 …”

Analysis of Factors Causing Skin Damage in the Application of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter in Cancer Patients

“…is is an important issue that requires clinical medical staff to pay close attention [10,11]. If the skin damage caused by PICC is not treated promptly and appropriately, it will cause more serious problems, such as skin diseases, various infections, and tissue damage, which will affect the treatment effect and quality of life of the patient and increase the patient's medical expenses [12,13].…”

Tailored approach to the choice of long-term vascular access in breast cancer patients

“…TIVADs may be associated with complications such as infection, thrombosis, migration or malposition, pain associated with the procedure, and catheter occlusion [1,13,14]. The common complications of PICCs are infection, thrombosis, catheter occlusion, migration, tip malposition, rupture, and phlebitis [15,16]. The complication rates of PICCs were reported to range from 4 to 50% [13,[17][18][19][20], which is higher than the rates associated with ports.…”