2018
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.24212
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk associated with central catheters for malignant tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: The risk of venous thrombosis and mortality associated with central catheter (PICC/CICC) for malignant tumor patients is not definite. So, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate it. Among patients with comparing PICC with CICC, odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) was calculated with a random effect model meta-analysis. The result of the stratification analysis of 7 studies (PICC vs CICC) supported the theory that CICCs were associated with a decrease in the odds ratio of thrombosis com… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This SLR differs from others in that it is comparative and primarily quantitative, 2123 inclusive of all typical catheter-dependent populations, 19 focuses on a multitude of outcomes, 3,20 and considers articles from 2006 and beyond. 3,1921,23 Gaps between the findings of other reviews and ours could possibly be explained by changes in practice in catheter implementation following new guidelines that emerged after 2006, the threshold year for our article requirements. 2,14,15 In addition, our DVT meta-analysis result can be considered more contemporary than Chopra et al 20 due to the exclusion of older studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This SLR differs from others in that it is comparative and primarily quantitative, 2123 inclusive of all typical catheter-dependent populations, 19 focuses on a multitude of outcomes, 3,20 and considers articles from 2006 and beyond. 3,1921,23 Gaps between the findings of other reviews and ours could possibly be explained by changes in practice in catheter implementation following new guidelines that emerged after 2006, the threshold year for our article requirements. 2,14,15 In addition, our DVT meta-analysis result can be considered more contemporary than Chopra et al 20 due to the exclusion of older studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Knowledge of how different catheter types and practices impact complication risk is important when considering a patient’s clinical and risk profile. Previous meta-analyses have been conducted to investigate how centrally placed catheters are associated with DVT 1922 and CLABSI risk. 3,23 However, these meta-analyses included studies much older than the recent guidelines that have evolved to enhance complication prevention practices.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PICC was reported to have fewer mechanical complications related to the insertion procedure, and it has recently been recommended for administration of anticancer agents (1). Despite this advantage, PICC is associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis compared with CICC (3,7,8). To solve this problem, a synthetic polymer-coated PICC, Ar2, was developed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to some guidelines, this validated risk-assessment tool could be the Khorana score, and a threshold ≥2 can be considered for patients who can be prescribed antithrombotic prophylaxis [ 5 , 15 ]. Instead, the use of anticoagulation for routine prophylaxis of catheter-related thrombosis is not recommended [ 15 , 20 ], although peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than centrally inserted central venous catheters, especially in cancer patients [ 28 , 29 ].…”
Section: Pathophysiology Of Vte In Cancer Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%