2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-003-0558-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Totally implantable subcutaneous port system versus central venous catheter placed before induction chemotherapy in patients with acute leukaemia?a randomized study

Abstract: A group of 43 adult patients with acute leukaemia (AL) were randomized to receive a double-lumen totally implantable subcutaneous port system (PORT, n=19) or a double-lumen central venous catheter (CVC, n=24) before induction chemotherapy. Six patients were excluded due to protocol violation ( n=4, CVC) and technical difficulties ( n=2, PORT). A standardized catheter record form was used for recording of catheter function, local infection and bleeding. The study was prematurely closed due to extensive subcutan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
37
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
4
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In 1 large prospective study, increased risk was observed in patients with Hickman catheters when compared with patients with an implanted device (odds ratio [OR] 1.83). 47 These findings are consistent with studies of pediatric and adult hematology or oncology populations, which generally associate lower rates of catheter-associated bloodstream infection with implanted devices (0.02-0.2 per 1000 CVC days), [48][49][50][51][52] when compared with tunneled (0.1-11.5 per 1000 CVC days) or nontunneled (0.36-3.8 per 1000 CVC days) 52,[75][76][77][78] CVCs. Comparison between these studies is limited, however, by differences in case definition and study population.…”
Section: Risk Factors For Infection Should Be Sought and Recordedsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…In 1 large prospective study, increased risk was observed in patients with Hickman catheters when compared with patients with an implanted device (odds ratio [OR] 1.83). 47 These findings are consistent with studies of pediatric and adult hematology or oncology populations, which generally associate lower rates of catheter-associated bloodstream infection with implanted devices (0.02-0.2 per 1000 CVC days), [48][49][50][51][52] when compared with tunneled (0.1-11.5 per 1000 CVC days) or nontunneled (0.36-3.8 per 1000 CVC days) 52,[75][76][77][78] CVCs. Comparison between these studies is limited, however, by differences in case definition and study population.…”
Section: Risk Factors For Infection Should Be Sought and Recordedsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…The indications of PICC line and venous port insertion are different. PICCline indications include continuous venous access (bone marrow transplantation), patients with acute leukaemia and/or at high risk of haemorrhage [54], daily access, patients needing dialysis and needle-phobic patients, whereas venous port indications include long-term and intermittent infusion therapy (weeks to months). Ports have great advantages over PICCs, such as safety, low infection rates, patient comfort and cost effectiveness after a few weeks [55].…”
Section: Indications For Long-line Insertionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evidence from one randomized trial of catheters demonstrated that the addition of a silver-impregnated cuff to the standard central catheter did not identify a significant difference in catheter-related Type of catheter Johansson et al, 2004Cortelezzi, A. et al, 2003Biffi et al, 2001Minassian et al, 2000Bow et al, 1999Warner et al, 1996Mueller et al, 1992Eastridge & Lefor, 1995Carde et al, 1989Gleeson et al, 1993Kappers-Klunne et al 1989Raad et al, 1993Pegues et al, 1992Pasquale et al, 1992 infection. While there is evidence that catheters treated with chlorhexidine-silver sulfadiazine was effective, reducing blood stream infection rates in short-term non-tunnelled venous access devices, the benefit is restricted to the first eight days, and does not continue when the average insertion time exceeds eight days (Walder, Pittet, & Tramer, 2002).…”
Section: What Type Of Catheter Should Be Used?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The highest level of evidence comes from the randomized trials. Two additional randomized or quasi-randomized trials were terminated prematurely due to severe local bleeding experienced by five patients with ports, compared to none in the control group (Johansson et al, 2004) or because of an excess of complications in the Groshong™ group (Warner, Haygood, Davies, & Hennies, 1996). The patient's risk for complications such as infection or thrombosis can influence the choice of catheter type.…”
Section: What Type Of Catheter Should Be Used?mentioning
confidence: 99%