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

Complication Rates of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in Oncologic Versus Non-Oncologic Patients

OBJECTIVES

Peripherally inserted central catheters are commonly used in cancer patients and provide vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, or parenteral nutrition. Besides many advantages, they represent a source of possible complications such as catheter related blood stream infection, catheter occlusion, or thrombosis. In this study, the catheter-related complication rate between oncologic and non-oncologic patients was compared.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort-study included 411 patients who underwent their first catheter placement at the Vienna General Hospital-Medical University of Vienna from January 2013 to June 2018. Patient demographics and catheter-related parameters were collected and statistically analyzed using a competing risk model.

RESULTS

Mean catheter dwell time was 27.75 days. The overall complication rate was 7.54% (2.72 per 1000 catheter days). Underlying malignant disease (hazard ratio: 0.351, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.133-0.929, P = .035) and chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 2.837, 95% CI: 1.088-7.394, P = .033) were significantly associated with the occurrence of any kind of complication. Catheter related blood stream infection was observed among 11 (2.68%) patients and again significantly associated with chemotherapy administration (hazard ratio: 4.545, 95% CI: 1.178-17.539; P = .028). Thrombosis was found in 7 (1.70%) patients and occlusion in 13 (3.16%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Choice of venous access is an interdisciplinary decision with emphasis on patient participation. In oncologic patients, our data suggests that the benefits of peripherally inserted central catheters regarding costs, invasiveness, and accessibility might be outweighed by the higher rate of complications associated with the device. This becomes even more important in a community care setting, where standardized handling procedures and patient education play a pivotal role in device safety.

Glucocorticoid use and parenteral nutrition are risk factors for catheter-related Candida bloodstream infection: a retrospective study

Background

Catheter-related candidemia (CRC) is a serious catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) caused by Candida spp., with higher mortality than CRBSIs caused by other organisms.

Objective

To identify the risk factors for Candida CRBSI. The clinical characteristics of 297 patients with CRBSI in a local hospital from January 2007 to June 2015 were collected, including 33 Candida CRBSI and 264 non-Candida CRBSI.

Method

The associations of Candida CRBSI with the clinical variables were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Multivariate analysis showed that glucocorticoid use (odds ratio [OR] = 10.313, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.032-52.330, P = 0.005) and parenteral nutrition (OR = 5.400, 95% CI = 0.472-61.752, P = 0.0175) were independent risk factors for Candida CRBSI. The most prevalent species were Candida tropicalis (42.4%) and Candida albicans (36.36%). Of the 33 Candida CRBSI cases, 31 (93.93%) had indwelling central venous catheters (CVC) for ≥14 d. The mortality of Candida CRBSI was remarkably higher than that of bacteria CRBSI. Patients with timely catheter removal and appropriate antifungal treatment had dramatically increased 28-d survival compared with those with untimely catheter removal + inappropriate antifungal treatment (88.89% vs. 0, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

The study identified glucocorticoid use and parenteral nutrition as independent risk factors for Candida CRBSI. The outcome of candidemia was associated with the duration of CVC indwelling and antifungal treatment.

Psychological experiences and needs of tumor patients with implanted intravenous infusion ports: a qualitative study

Background

There are many problems of psychological burden in patients with tumor implanted in port of intravenous infusion. However, more attention is paid to its complications in the literature, and psychological problems are seldom concerned. The purpose of this study was to explore the psychological state and needs of tumor patients after implantation of an intravenous infusion port and provide valuable references for psychological interventions.

Method

A semi-structured interview was conducted with 11 patients with intravenous infusion ports. Colaizzi's 7-step analysis was used to analyze the interview data.

Results

According to the primary information, four themes and nine sub-themes were extracted: (1) lack of self-worth, (2) multiple emotional experiences (guilt, doubt, worry, and gain). (3) Poor self-management and self-maintenance awareness (over-reliance on medical staff, unchanged family roles, lack of related knowledge). (4) Expectations and suggestions for the future (inner expectations, suggestions for infusion ports).

Conclusion

The patient's psychological state should be carefully monitored during tube implantation, to relieve the patient's tension and anxiety and improve nursing satisfaction and patient outcomes.

Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Care Practices and Experiences of Pediatric and Adult Oncology Nurses

This study aimed to determine the practices of nurses working in pediatric and adult oncology clinics regarding totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) care. The descriptive study was conducted with 227 oncology nurse members of the Oncology Nursing Association. The data were collected online with a survey form, which included questions about the participants' sociodemographic characteristics, professional experience, and TIVAD implementation practices. Descriptive statistics and ꭓ2 tests were used for the analysis of the data. It was determined that 44.1% of the nurses used 0.9% NaCl for active TIVAD flushing; 15.9% of them used a positive-pressure 0.9% NaCl-filled syringe; 12.3% used antireflux connectors; 85.5% used manual positive pressure technique; and 53.7% used the pulsatile technique. A statistical difference was found between nurses' training on TIVAD care and TIVAD occlusion rate in the clinic, TIVAD infection rate, following the guidelines, and using the pulsatile technique (P < .05). This study revealed that there are differences in the practices for TIVAD care and that the recommendations in the literature/guidelines are not implemented at the desired level to ensure continuity and prevent complications.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Versus Centrally Inserted Central Catheter for In-Hospital Infusion Therapy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) compared with centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs).

METHODS

Prospective cohort study was followed by an economic analysis over a 30-day time horizon. Propensity score matching was used to select hospitalized adults with similar indications for PICC or CICC. The composite outcome was device removal or replacement because of complications before the end of treatment. The economic evaluation was based on a decision tree model for cost-effectiveness analysis, with calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per catheter removal avoided. All costs are presented in Brazilian reais (BRL) (1 BRL = 0.1870 US dollar).

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients were followed in each group; 172 (79.3%) of those receiving a PICC and 135 (62.2%) of those receiving a CICC had no device-related complication, respectively. When comparing the events leading to device removal, the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the CICC group (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.11-0.35). The cost of PICC placement was BRL 1290.98 versus BRL 467.16 for a CICC. In the base case, the ICER for placing a PICC instead of a CICC was BRL 3349.91 per removal or replacement avoided. On univariate sensitivity analyses, the model proved to be robust within an ICER range of 2500.00 to 4800.00 BRL.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC placement was associated with a lower risk of complications than CICC placement. Although the cost of a PICC is higher, its use avoided complications and need for catheter replacement before the end of treatment.

Vascular access device type for systemic anti-cancer therapies in cancer patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer can expect to receive numerous invasive vascular access procedures for intravenous therapy and clinical diagnostics. Due to the increased incidence and prevalence of cancer globally there will be significantly more people who require first-line intravenous chemotherapy over the next ten years.

METHODS

Our objective was to determine the types of evidence that exist for the vascular access device (VAD) type for the delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in cancer patients. We used JBI scoping review methodology to identify the types of VADs used for SACT and with a specific search strategy included articles from 2012-2022 published in the English language. We identify (i) type of VADs used for SACT delivery (ii) the type of insertion and post-insertion complications (iii) the geographical location and clinical environment (iv) and whether VAD choice impacts on quality of life (QOL). Findings were presented using the PAGER framework.

MAIN FINDINGS

Our search strategy identified 10,390 titles, of these, 5318 duplicates were removed. The remaining 5072 sources were screened for eligibility, 240 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common design include retrospective study designs (n = 91) followed by prospective study designs (n = 31). We found 28 interventional studies with 21 registered in a clinical trial registry and identified no core outcome sets papers specific to VAD for SACT. The most prevalent publications were those that featured two or more VAD types (n = 70), followed by tunnelled intravenous VADs (n = 67). Of 38 unique complications identified, the most frequent catheter related complication was catheter related thrombosis (n = 178, 74%), followed by infection (n = 170, 71%). The county where the most publications originated from was China (n = 62) with one randomized controlled multicenter study from a comprehensive cancer centre. Of the thirty three studies that included QOL we found 4 which reported on body image. No QOL measurement tools specific to the process of SACT administration via VAD are available INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest a systematic review and meta-analysis of VAD use for intravenous SACT can be considered. However, the development of a core outcome set for SACT should be prioritised. Funding for high quality programs of research for VAD in cancer are needed. Comprehensive cancer centres should lead this research agenda.

Patient preferences and willingness to pay for central venous access devices in breast cancer: A multicenter discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Despite being a significant management decision in clinical or nursing practice, there is limited understanding of the preferences regarding risks, benefits, costs, and other attributes of patients with breast cancer when selecting peripherally inserted central catheters or totally implanted ports. The objective of this study is to investigate the preferences of patients with breast cancer who require chemotherapy when selecting an optimal central venous access device.

METHODS

Data on patients' preferences for central venous access devices were collected using a face-to-face discrete choice experiment from the oncology departments of three public hospitals in China representing the eastern (Zhejiang province), central (Henan province), and western (Sichuan province) regions. The study used six attributes to describe the preferences of breast cancer patients for central venous access devices, including out-of-pocket cost, limitations in activities of daily living, catheter maintenance frequency, risk of catheter-related thrombosis, risk of catheter-related infection, and size of incision. Data were analyzed using a conditional logit model and mixed logit model. The marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) was calculated by assessing the ratio of the preference for other attributes to the preference for out-of-pocket cost.

RESULTS

A total of 573 respondents completed the survey. The discrete choice experiment results showed that respondents strongly preferred a central venous access device with a catheter maintenance frequency of one time a month (vs four times a month, β = 1.188, p < 0.001), the lower risk of catheter-related thrombosis (2 % vs 10 %, β = 1.068; p < 0.001) and lower risk of catheter-related infection (2 % vs 8 % risk: β = 0.824; p < 0.001). Respondents were willing to pay CNY ¥11,968.1 (US$1776.5) for a central venous access device with a catheter maintenance frequency of one time a month rather than four times a month, ¥10,753.6 (US$1596.2) for a central venous access device with 2 % thrombosis risk over one with 10 %, and ¥8302.0 (US$1232.3) for a central venous access device with 2 % infection risk over one with 8 %. Respondents with longer travel time to the hospital, younger than 50 years old, and with urban employee basic medical insurance were willing to pay more for an improvement in the attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that patients with breast cancer were mainly concerned with the out-of-pocket cost, catheter maintenance frequency, risk of catheter-related thrombosis and risk of catheter-related infection when choosing a central venous access device for the delivery of chemotherapy. In clinical or nursing practice, when making central venous access device recommendation for young patients and those who live far from hospitals, totally implanted ports may be a preferable choice.

Incidence and clinical progression of asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis in solid neoplasm patients: ultrasound insights from a prospective cohort study

Background

Managing central venous catheters in patients with neoplasms is challenging, and peripherally inserted central catheter PORT (PICC-PORT) has emerged as a promising option for safety and efficacy. However, understanding the clinical progression of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients with central venous catheters remains limited, especially in certain neoplasm types associated with a higher risk of venous thrombosis.

Objectives

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided management in detecting and treating asymptomatic CRT in cancer patients with PICC.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study of 120 patients with solid neoplasms receiving chemotherapy, we investigated the incidence of isolated upper-extremity superficial vein thrombosis, upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, and fibrin sheath formation through ultrasound follow-up at 30 and 90 days after catheter insertion. We analyzed risk factors associated with CRT and compared incidence rates between PICC-PORT and traditional PICC.

Results

Among the cohort, 69 patients (57.5%) had high-risk thromboembolic neoplasm, and 31 cases (25.8%) of CRT were observed, mostly within 30 days, with only 7 cases (22.6%) showing symptoms. Traditional PICC use (odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.14-30) and high-risk thromboembolic neoplasm (odds ratio, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.26-15.81) were identified as independent risk factors for CRT.

Conclusion

The majority of CRT present asymptomatically within the first 30 days of venous catheter insertion in patients with solid neoplasms. Ultrasound follow-up is valuable for detecting asymptomatic CRT. The risk of CRT was lower with PICC-PORT than with PICC. Additionally, the risk of CRT was found to be higher in patients with high-risk thromboembolic neoplasms. It is crucial for larger studies to confirm the utility of treating asymptomatic thromboses and isolated superficial thrombosis.

Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service.

RESULTS

PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service.

CONCLUSION

Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

Correlations between activation, family adaptation, and self-perceived burden in breast cancer patients with an implanted venous access port: A cross-sectional study

We found that activation and family adaptation on the self-perceived burden of breast cancer patients with an implanted venous access port (IVAP), and to analyze the correlations among these scores. A total of 256 patients completed a general data questionnaire, the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), the Family adaptation and Cohesion Scale II-Chinese version (FACES-II-CV), and the Self-perceived Burden Scale (SPBS). The total scores for activation, family adaptation, and self-perceived burden were 63.31 ± 18.92, 42.72 ± 7.937, and 28.55 ± 7.89, respectively. We analyzed activation and family adaptation were associated with self-perceived burden (P < .05) the patients' self-perceived burden main factors is included Main caregiver, disease stage, complications, Type of health insurance, activation, and family adaptation. The activation, family adaptation, and self-perceived burden of breast cancer patients with an IVAP are closely related, which suggests that clinical workers should consider the patient family to formulate an intervention plan to improve patient activation, and thus reduce the self-perceived burden. For example, hospitals regularly conduct breast cancer health education activities, or invite psychological counselors to provide services to patients.

Mediport use as an acceptable standard for CAR T cell infusion

Introduction

Mediport use as a clinical option for the administration of chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR T cell) therapy in patients with B-cell malignancies has yet to be standardized. Concern for mediport dislodgement, cell infiltration, and ineffective therapy delivery to systemic circulation has resulted in variable practice with intravenous administration of CAR T cell therapy. With CAR T cell commercialization, it is important to establish practice standards for CAR T cell delivery. We conducted a study to establish usage patterns of mediports in the clinical setting and provide a standard of care recommendation for mediport use as an acceptable form of access for CAR T cell infusions.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, data on mediport use and infiltration rate was collected from a survey across 34 medical centers in the Pediatric Real-World CAR Consortium, capturing 504 CAR T cell infusion routes across 489 patients. Data represents the largest, and to our knowledge sole, report on clinical CAR T cell infusion practice patterns since FDA approval and CAR T cell commercialization in 2017.

Results

Across 34 sites, all reported tunneled central venous catheters, including Broviac® and Hickman® catheters, as accepted standard venous options for CAR T cell infusion. Use of mediports as a standard clinical practice was reported in 29 of 34 sites (85%). Of 489 evaluable patients with reported route of CAR T cell infusion, 184 patients were infused using mediports, with no reported incidences of CAR T cell infiltration.

Discussion/Conclusion

Based on current clinical practice, mediports are a commonly utilized form of access for CAR T cell therapy administration. These findings support the safe practice of mediport usage as an accepted standard line option for CAR T cell infusion.

Anatomical Structures to Be Concerned With During Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Procedures

BACKGROUND

The central line has been frequently used for drug and nutrition supply and regular blood sampling of patients with chronic diseases. However, this procedure is performed in a highly sensitive area and has several potential complications. Therefore, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), which have various advantages, are being extensively used. Although the number of PICC procedures is increasing, the anatomy for safe procedures has not yet been properly established. Therefore, we studied basic anatomical information for safe procedures.

METHODS

We used 20 fixed cadavers (40 arms) donated to the Korea University College of Medicine. The mean age was 76.75 years (range, 48-94 years). After dissection of each arm, the distribution pattern of the basilic vein and close structures was recorded, and some important parameters based on bony landmarks were measured. In addition, the number of vein branches (axillary region) and basilic vein diameter were also checked.

RESULTS

The mean length from the insertion site to the right atrium was 38.39 ± 2.63 cm (left) and 34.66 ± 3.60 cm (right), and the basilic vein diameter was 4.93 ± 1.18 mm (left) and 4.08 ± 1.49 mm (right). The data showed significant differences between the left and right arms (P < 0.05). The mean distance from the basilic vein to brachial artery was 8.29 ± 2.78 mm in men and 7.81 ± 2.78 mm in women, while the distance to the ulnar nerve was 5.41 ± 1.67 mm in men and 5.52 ± 2.06 mm in women.

CONCLUSION

According to these results, the right arm has a shorter distance from the insertion site to the right atrium, and the left arm has a wider vein diameter, which is advantageous for the procedure. In addition, the ulnar nerve and brachial artery were located close to or behind the insertion site. Therefore, special attention is required during the procedure to avoid damaging these important structures.

Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) were compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as the administration of chemotherapy regarding different clinical effects and adverse effects. Which is better is debatable. Hence, the current study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of these two optimal vascular access strategies.

Methods

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library updated in May 2023. Studies on the differences in complication rates in patients with cancer using either PICC or PORT for chemotherapy were included. Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 22 articles were retrieved. The results suggested that PORT has a superior safety profile, with lower incidences of overall adverse effects (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.56-4.72 P=0.0004), catheter-related thrombosis (OR=2.84, 95% CI=1.97-4.11, P<0.00001), and allergic reactions (OR=6.26, 95% CI=1.86-21.09, P=0.003) than typically expected with PICC. Moreover, PICC was non-inferior to the PORT group with respect to DVT (OR=2.00, 95% CI=0.86-4.65, P=0.11) and infection (OR=1.55, 95% CI=0.75-3.22, P=0.24).

Conclusion

PORT achieved safety benefits compared with chemotherapy through PICC. Therefore, PORT is regarded as safe and effective vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy. When considering economic factors and some key elements, more high-quality research would help verify these clinical benefits.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identififier CRD42023421690.

Biomarkers Associated with Thrombosis in Patients with Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The measurement and identification of plasma biomarkers can support the estimation of risk and diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with the use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC).

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the association between the levels of potential biomarkers that reflect the activation of the blood system, long-term vascular complications, inflammatory system, and the occurrence of PICC-related DVT.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases (Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ERIC) were searched to identify literature published until December 2022. Studies were required to report: (I) adult and pediatric patients, outpatient or admitted to clinical, surgical, or ICU with PICC; (II) patients with PICC-related DVT and patients without PICC-related DVT as a comparator; and (III) at least one biomarker available. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Study precision was evaluated by using a funnel plot for platelets level. We provided a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of the findings on the biomarkers' outcomes of the studies. We pooled the results using random effects meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v5.4. This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018108871).

RESULTS

Of the 3564 studies identified (after duplication removal), 28 were included. PICC-related DVT was associated with higher D-dimers (0.37 μg/mL, 95% CI 0.02, 0.72; p = 0.04, I² = 92%; p for heterogeneity < 0.00001) and with higher platelets (8.76 × 10⁹/L, 95% CI 1.62, 15.91; p = 0.02, I² = 41%; p for heterogeneity = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

High levels of D-dimer and platelet were associated with DVT in patients with PICC. However, biomarkers such as APTT, fibrinogen, FDP, glucose, hemoglobin, glycated hemoglobin, INR, prothrombin time, prothrombin fragment 1.2, the thrombin-antithrombin complex, and WBC were not related to the development of DVT associated with PICC.

[Application of Midline Catheter Placed Under Ultrasound Guidance in Intravenous Therapy for Oral and Maxillofacial Tumor]

Objective

To examine the application effect of ultrasound-guided placement of midline catheter and to select the appropriate placement method of intravenous catheter for patients with oral and maxillofacial tumors.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the general data and venous catheter-related information of 143 oral and maxillofacial tumor patients who received treatment between June 2019 and December 2021. There were two patient groups, a control group of patients with inserted peripheral venous catheters (PVC) and an observation group of patients with midline catheters placed under ultrasound guidance. We made a comparative analysis of the incidence of catheter-related complications, including bleeding at the insertion site, phlebitis, catheter blockage, extravasation, etc., in the two groups. When the baseline data from the two groups were not balanced, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to match the general data before comparing the complication incidence between the two groups.

Results

There were 71 patients who underwent 215 times of PVC placement in the control group and 72 patients who underwent 72 times of midline catheter placement in the observation group. There was no significant difference between the patients in the two groups in terms of age, sex, diagnosis, or the use of anticoagulant medication ( P>0.05) . The observation group had longer average length-of-stay than the control group did ( P<0.01). The cost of catheter placement in the observation group was 1080 yuan per set, with the average daily cost being about (56.27±20.23) yuan. Patients in the control group had PVC placement for an average of (3.03±0.93) times. The cost for PVC placement was 96 yuan per time and the average daily cost was about (19.94±7.50) yuan. There was significant difference in the average daily cost between the observation group and the control group ( P<0.01). PSM was performed for the two groups. Before PSM, the incidence of catheter-related complications in the observation group (8.3%, 6/72) was lower than that of the control group (30.2%, 65/215) and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01). After PSM, 72 times of catheter placement from each group were included in comparative analysis. The incidence of catheter-related complications in the observation group (8.3%, 6/72) was lower than that of the control group (54.2%, 39/72) and the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.01).

Conclusion

Patients have low incidence of catheter-related complications when they have midline catheter placed under ultrasound guidance, which helps reduce the pain of repeated venous insertion that patients incur and the workload of clinical nurses. The use of midline catheters is appropriate for and should be popularized among patients with oral and maxillofacial malignant tumors, especially patients who have poor peripheral venous conditions and those who are undergoing repair and reconstruction surgeries.

Cost-utility analysis of different venous access devices in breast cancer patients: a decision-based analysis model

BACKGROUND

Venous access devices commonly used in clinical practice for long-term chemotherapy of breast cancer include central venous catheters (CVCs), peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs), and implantable venous access ports (IVAPs). CVCs and PICCs are less costly to place but have a higher complication rate than IVAPs. However, there is a lack of cost-utility comparisons among the three devices. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of three catheters for long-term chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

This study used propensity score matching (PSM) to establish a retrospective cohort. Decision tree models were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three different intravenous lines in breast cancer chemotherapy patients. Cost parameters were derived from data extracted from the outpatient and inpatient charging systems, and total costs included costs of placement, maintenance, extraction, and handling of complications; utility parameters were derived from previous cross-sectional survey results of the research group; and complication rates were derived from breast cancer catheterization patient information as well as follow-up information. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured for efficacy outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare the three strategies. To assess uncertainty in model parameters, sensitivity analyses (univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis) were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 10,718 patients (3780 after propensity score matching) were included. IVAPs had the smallest cost-utility ratio, and PICCs had the largest cost-utility ratio when left in place for more than 12 months. The incremental cost-utility ratio of PICC to CVC was $2375.08/QALY, IVAP to PICC was $522.01/QALY, and IVAP to CVC was $612.98/QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that IVAPs were more effective than CVCs and PICCs. Model regression analysis showed that the IVAP was recommended as the best regimen regardless of the catheter indwelling time (6 months, 12 months or more than 12 months). The reliability and stability of the model were verified by single-factor sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation (probabilistic sensitivity analysis).

CONCLUSION

This study provides economic evidence for the selection of vascular access in breast cancer chemotherapy patients. In the case of limited resources in China, establishing a decision tree model comparing the cost-effectiveness of three vascular access devices for breast cancer chemotherapy patients determined that the IVAP was the most cost-effective regimen.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Central Venous Access Device and Site Selection

The use of central venous access devices is ubiquitous in both inpatient and outpatient settings, whether for critical care, oncology, hemodialysis, parenteral nutrition, or diagnostic purposes. Radiology has a well-established role in the placement of these devices due to demonstrated benefits of radiologic placement in multiple clinical settings. A wide variety of devices are available for central venous access and optimal device selection is a common clinical challenge. Central venous access devices may be nontunneled, tunneled, or implantable. They may be centrally or peripherally inserted by way of veins in the neck, extremities, or elsewhere. Each device and access site presents specific risks that should be considered in each clinical scenario to minimize the risk of harm. The risk of infection and mechanical injury should be minimized in all patients. In hemodialysis patients, preservation of future access is an additional important consideration. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

A comparative study between two methods of delivery of chemotherapeutic agent in patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma of lower extremity

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the effects of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) in terms of complications and shoulder function in patients with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities.

METHODS

We analyzed 65 cases of TIVADs (chest wall) and 65 cases of PICC at the orthopedic department of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between June 2019 and December 2021, which were diagnosed with malignant bone tumors or soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities (tumors had to be relatively sensitive to chemotherapy), received regular chemotherapy, with ≥ 14 cycles (42 weeks). The two groups were compared in terms of catheter indwelling time, catheter-related complications, Constant-Murley shoulder function score, and displacement of the position of the catheter end on the catheterization side.

RESULTS

Compared to the PICC group, at six months after catheterization, the TIVADs group reported better outcomes for catheter indwelling time, catheter-related complications, and Constant-Murley score for the catheterization-side shoulder joint (p < 0.05). The TIVADs group also reported less displacement of the catheter end position after 180° abduction of the catheterization-side shoulder joint (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PICC, TIVADs can prolong catheter indwelling time, reduce catheter-related complications, and maintain shoulder joint function, which makes it an ideal venous-access approach when providing chemotherapy to patients with malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities.

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

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer poses a great threat to females worldwide. There are various therapies available to cure this common disease, such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy. Implantable venous access ports (IVAP, referred to as PORT) have been widely used for breast cancer chemotherapy. Venous malformations are possible conditions encountered during PORT implantation. Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a common superior vena cava malformation. Most patients have normal right superior vena cava without affecting hemodynamics, so patients often have no obvious symptoms.

CASE SUMMARY

We incidentally found that two patients had PLSVC while a PORT was implanted via the internal jugular vein. Due to chemotherapy for breast cancer, PORT was successfully implanted under the guidance of ultrasound into these 2 patients. Positive chest X-ray examination after the operation showed that the catheter ran beside the left mediastinum and the end was located in the seventh thoracic vertebra. The patients had no catheter-related complications and successfully completed the course of chemotherapy. Ultrasonography found that the ratio of PORT outer diameter to PLSVC inner diameter was less than 0.45, which was in line with the recommendations of relevant literature and operating guidelines. The purpose of this article is to introduce two rare cases and review the relevant literature.

CONCLUSION

Correct assessment of PLSVC status and ultrasound-guided PORT placement generally does not affect breast cancer patients chemotherapy.

Patterns of use and outcomes of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients with solid tumors: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related complications in patients hospitalized with solid tumors remains unclear. Existing studies are limited by single-center, outpatient designs and include heterogenous patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was designed and included adult patients with solid organ cancers who were admitted to a general medicine ward or intensive care unit and received a PICC. Data were collected from November 2013 to December 2019 at 50 Michigan hospitals. Major complications were defined as central line-associated bloodstream infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and catheter occlusion. Hospital variation in PICC use and outcomes was examined.

RESULTS

Data included 3235 hospitalized patients with solid tumors who had PICCs placed for 51,047 catheter days. Most catheters were double-lumen devices (57.0%). Notably, 17.5% of patients had another central venous catheter at the time of PICC insertion. The most common indications for PICC use were antibiotics (34.5%) and difficult access or blood draws (21.6%); chemotherapy was the primary indication in only 15.7% of patients. A major PICC-related complication occurred in 491 patients (15.2%); catheter occlusion was the most prevalent complication (n = 322; 10.0%) followed by deep vein thrombosis (n = 116; 3.6%), central line-associated bloodstream infection (n = 82; 2.5%), and pulmonary embolism (n = 20; 0.6%). Significant variation in indications for PICC use, device characteristics, and frequency of major complications across hospitals was observed (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

PICCs were associated with significant complications in hospitalized patients who had solid malignancies and were often used for reasons other than chemotherapy. Policies and guidance for the appropriate use of PICCs in oncologic patients appear necessary.

LAY SUMMARY

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are devices placed in peripheral veins to deliver medication to large veins near the heart. PICCs are used frequently in oncology. The objective of this report was to describe PICC-associated complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors. This study was performed across 50 Michigan hospitals and included 3235 patients with solid tumor cancers and who had a PICC. Overall, 15.2% of patients experienced a complication, including central line-associated bloodstream infections, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or catheter occlusion. Complication rates varied across hospitals. PICCs are associated with substantial complications in hospitalized patients with solid tumors.

Cost-utility analysis of centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) vs. peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the oncology chemotherapy

Background

Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and centrally inserted totally implanted access port (PORT) are two types of intravenous infusion devices that are widely used in clinical practice. PORTs are more expensive to insert than PICCs but have fewer complications. Two cost-utility analyses of PICCs and PORTs in China have been published, but had conflicting findings. This study aimed to compare the cost-utility of PICCs and PORTs.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational trial including 404 patients with cancer and a cross-sectional study to calculate cost and complications of a PICC and PORT. Utility was measured using the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). A cost-utility analysis was performed from a healthcare system perspective in China.

Results

The average total cost of PICCs and PORTs were ¥ 4,091.7 and ¥ 4,566.8, which yielded 0.46 and 0.475 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a 6-month dwell time, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was ¥ 31,670.9 per QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the base-case results were robust, and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥ 80,976 per QALY (China's per capita GDP in 2021) the probability of a PORT being cost-effective was 96%.

Conclusion

PORTs were more cost-effective than PICCs for a 6 and 12-month dwell time. The total cost for a PORT was also less than that of a PICC. PORT is therefore recommended as a medium to long-term intravenous delivery device in clinical practice.

Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Objectives

Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are commonly used for the delivery of immunochemotherapy. We compared the safety of the two types of devices in a homogeneous and monocentric population of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who were treated with first‐line immunochemotherapy by evaluating the numbers of catheter‐related venous thromboses (VTs) and infections that occurred in the six months after implantation according to the type of device.

Methods

Using a propensity score, the adjusted relative risk (ARR) between the type of catheter and the occurrence of catheter‐related complications (infection and/or VT) of interest was retrospectively determined.

Results

479 patients were enrolled (266 PORTs/213 PICCs), and 26 VTs (5.4%) and 30 infections (6.3%) were identified in the period following PICC/PORT implantation. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of catheter‐related complications (infection and/or VT) according to the type of device was 2.6 (95% CI =1.3–5.9, p = .0075). This risk increase associated with the PICC device was significant for both infections (ARR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3–10.9) and thrombosis (ARR = 4; 95% CI = 1.5–11.6).

Conclusion

Our study supports the preferential use of PORTs for the first line of treatment for DLBCL patients.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Ensuring reliable central venous access with the least complications is vital for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety, quality of life (QoL) and cost effectiveness of different types of central venous access device (CVAD) for patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched from inception to 20^th August 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing the various CVADs [non-tunnelled central venous catheter (non-tunnelled catheter), peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC), totally implantable ports (PORT), and tunnelled catheter].

RESULTS

A total of 11 eligible RCTs comprising 2585 patients were identified. PORT was associated with lower odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, thrombotic and mechanical complications compared to PICC [(Odds Ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 - 0.69), (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 - 0.93), (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 - 0.62) and (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.95) respectively]. Tunnelled catheter was associated with higher odds of overall complication rate, device removal due to complications and infective complications compared to PORT [(OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.30 - 2.17), (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.34 - 4.73), (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.14 - 3.90) respectively]. Ranking probability based on SUCRA values indicated that PORT had the lowest probability of overall complications, removal due to complications, and thrombotic complications.

CONCLUSION

PORT is superior in terms of complications, QoL compared to other CVADs without compromising on cost effectiveness and should be considered the standard of care in patients receiving chemotherapy.

Comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) versus totally implantable venous-access ports in pediatric oncology patients, a single center study

To compare the efficacy of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy of pediatric patients with malignant tumors. A total of 96 children with malignant tumors who received catheterization of PICCs or TIVAPs for chemotherapy from May 2020 to May 2021 in Department of Pediatric Oncology of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University were selected. Then, the pathological features of disease, the age of children, the indwelling time, the incidence of postoperative complications, and the satisfaction degree were compared between the two groups. The age of children in the TIVAP group was younger than that in the PICC group (P < 0.05). The indwelling time in the TIVAP group was 7.2 ± 2.757 months,which was significantly longer than 5.65 ± 2.058 months in the PICC group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the TIVAP group without systemic or local infection was markedly lower than that in the PICC group (P < 0.05). The satisfaction degree of patients in the TIVAP group without unsatisfied was markedly higher than that in the PICC group (P < 0.05). TIVAPs may be the first choice for chemotherapy of children with malignant tumors.

Adult oncology patients' experiences of living with a central venous catheter: a systematic review and meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cancer is increasing globally, and a greater number of patients will receive treatments though central vascular access devices (CVADs). Only a few qualitative studies describe the experience of adult oncology patients living with CVADs, and no systematic review of literature has been published on this topic. We therefore aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence of the qualitative studies on the experience of adult oncology patients with CVADs to report the implications of living with this device, and to inform healthcare professionals (HCPs) about problematic aspects of care for this population.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted on PUBMED, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE, and was updated on May 25, 2021. Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The evidence was synthesized using the meta-aggregation approach proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged: During catheter implantation oncology patients typically experience reluctance, apprehension and acceptance; The nature of the information, knowledge transmission and HCPs' competence all influence the patient's confidence; How the presence of a catheter impacts the patient's daily life, their self-perception and their social behavior; The catheter is a symbol of disease, a friend that helps prevent problems, and its removal is perceived as physical and psychological liberation.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review evidenced some problematic aspects related to patient information, education and device management, and gaps in nursing skills on handling the device. The results of this review should be used as a framework for improvement interventions.

Central catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in cancer: clinical course, prophylaxis, treatment

The adequate handling of central venous catheters is a key element in the management of patients with cancer. Catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis is frequently observed in patients with malignant diseases; however, despite being a common complication among these patients, objective information concerning its epidemiology, clinical course, prophylaxis and treatment strategies is very limited. The reported incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is highly variable, depending on symptomatic events, or if patients are screened for asymptomatic thrombosis. Several factors have been identified as potential predisposing factors for CRT, both technical and pathological aspects. The anticoagulant of choice is still unclear; while low-molecular-weight heparin is most commonly used, recent studies assessing the role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of CRT show promise as an alternative, but the evidence remains insufficient and the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review

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.

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

This study compared the possible options for vascular access in breast cancer patients by analyzing the complications of each method. We retrospectively evaluated the vascular access procedures for intravenous chemotherapy in breast cancer patients from 2016 to 2018. A total of 300 consecutive patients were included, 100 each who received peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), arm ports, and chest ports. When selecting a catheter, a PICC was considered when four cycles of chemotherapy were expected. Otherwise, patient preference was considered. All but one patient with an arm port were women, with mean age of 51.7 ± 9.1 years. The total mean complication-free catheter indwelling time was 1357.6 days for chest ports, 997.8 days for arm ports, and 366.8 days for PICCs (p = 0.004). There were 11 catheter-related complications (3.7%), one in a chest port patient, five in arm port patients, and eight in PICC patients. There was no patient with catheter related blood stream infection or deep vein thrombosis. All three types of catheters could be used in breast cancer patients without causing serious complications. The selection of catheter considering the clinical situation was effective for providing a safe and secure chemotherapy delivery route.

Outcomes, cost comparison, and patient satisfaction during long-term central venous access in cancer patients: Experience from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute in South India

Introduction:

Prolonged treatment, frequent administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics and blood products in cancer patients requires long term venous access. Central venous catheters (CVC) inserted into the subclavian vein or internal jugular vein, peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) and chemoport (CP) are the commonly used central venous access devices (CVAD).

Aim:

This study was envisaged to review our experience of CVADs over a one year period and analyze the outcome with regard to catheter life, reasons for removal, complications, patient satisfaction and cost comparison between the CVAD types in the Indian setting.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, observational study carried out in a tertiary care cancer institute.

Materials and Methods:

180 CVADs placed in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors from January 2014 to December 2014 were included.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann Whitney U test. P <0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Results:

180 CVADs were placed in 160 patients. The median catheter indwelling period was 76 days (16 days to 313 days) for CVC, 59 days (20days – 313 days) for PICC and 137 days (70 days – 258 days) for CP. 66 out of 160 patients developed complications (41.2%). 108 complication events were noted in 66 patients. There were 40 episodes of CRBSI. Out of the 68 mechanical complications, 37 were encountered during insertion of the CVAD and 31 were during the catheter indwelling period. Out of 160 patients, 138 (86.25%) were satisfied with the CVAD. The cost incurred for CVC/PICC (INR 4,480) was lower than that for CP (INR 24,150) and it was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). Our patients were highly satisfied with the CVAD.

Conclusion:

Use of CVC and PICC is a safe, reliable and cost saving way of administration of chemotherapy in developing countries. The incidence of complications and catheter loss was acceptable. Our patients were highly satisfied with the CVAD.

Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy.

DESIGN

An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted.

SETTING

This took place in 18 UK oncology centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation.

INTERVENTIONS

Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (-£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (-£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman.

CONCLUSIONS

In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted.

FUTURE WORK

The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients: A Meta-analysis

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.

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)

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.

Comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters and totally implanted venous access devices as chemotherapy delivery routes in oncology patients: A retrospective cohort study

This study aimed to evaluate peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs) as chemotherapy delivery routes. From May 2016 to April 2019, patients with malignancies who had PICCs or TIVADs inserted for chemotherapy were enrolled. We reviewed the patients' medical records for information concerning demographics, comorbidities, catheter-related complications, and catheter -service days. All patients included in both groups were also assessed for complication-free catheter survival and completion rates of chemotherapy. A total of 467 catheter insertions (185 PICCs and 282 TIVADs) were included in this study. The PICCs were associated with a higher rate of complication-related catheter removal than TIVADs (hazard ratio, 6.5954; 95% confidence interval, 2.394-18.168; p<0.001). The completion of chemotherapy was observed in 77 (41.6%) patients with PICCs and 128 (45.4%) with TIVADs (p = 0.442). The mean duration of catheter service-days was shorter for the patients in the PICC group who completed chemotherapy than those in the TIVAD group (101.3 ± 93.2 vs 245.3 ± 115.9, respectively, p < 0.001). Although PICC was an independent risk factor for complication-related catheter removal, there was no difference in the chemotherapy completion rate between the groups. Therefore, PICCs need to be considered preferentially in patients who require a chemotherapy delivery route for short-term chemotherapy.

Survival and Complications After Placement of Central Venous Access Ports for Palliative Chemotherapy: A Single-Institution Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the lack of empiric recommendations for vascular access for palliative chemotherapy, we aimed to analyze survival and complications after placement of central venous access ports for palliative chemotherapy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of 135 patients undergoing port placement for palliative chemotherapy at a single institution from January 2015 - July 2020.

RESULTS

The median age was 68 (range 47-91). Median overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5-8.9 months). The rate of port-related complications was 11.1% (15 of 135). Patients who developed port-related complications required corrective surgery in 73.3% (11 of 15) of cases. Results were similar among all patients, regardless of their primary diagnoses or central venous access sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased awareness about the limited survival of patients after port placement for palliative chemotherapy, and their significant complication risk could be used to help patients and their providers make value-aligned decisions about vascular access.

Peripherally inserted central catheter versus totally implanted venous port for delivering medium- to long-term chemotherapy: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) have been widely used for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. PICCs are associated with lower insertion cost, but higher complication rates than PORTs. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness comparisons between the devices. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PICCs and PORTs for medium- to long-term chemotherapy from catheter insertion to removal.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching (PSM) from the hospital perspective. Data were collected from a retrospective cohort study. The total cost outcome comprised insertion, maintenance, removal and complication costs. The effectiveness outcome was the complication-free rate. The primary and supplemental outcomes were cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

A total of 1050 patients (after PSM for 417 patients) were included. The average total cost for 3-6 month ($603.55 ± 78.68 vs $1270.21 ± 128.84), 6-9 month ($731.40 ± 42.97 vs $1414.48 ± 155.43), and 9-12 month ($966.83 ± 53.78 vs $1587.76 ± 160.56) dwell times were all significantly lower for PICCs than for PORTs (p < 0.001). PICCs were associated with significantly lower complication-free rates than PORTs during the 3-6 month (65.22% vs 90.58%, p < 0.001), 6-9 month (53.33% vs 91.80%, p < 0.001), and 9-12 month (44.44% vs 88.46%, p = 0.015) dwell times. Ultimately, PICCs were associated with lower CERs than PORTs for the 3-6 month (928.54 vs 1395.84) and 6-9 month (1380.00 vs 1537.48) but higher CER for the 9-12 month (2197.34 vs 1804.27) dwell times. ICERs were 2564.08 and 1751.49 with dwell times of 3-6 months and 6-9 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study provided economic evidence that informs vascular access device choice for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. For 3-9 month dwell times, PICCs were more cost-effective than PORTs. Furthermore, ICERs were applied and the choice was determined by willingness-to-pay. For 9-12 month dwell times, PORTs might be more cost-effective than PICCs, and studies with larger sample size would be needed to verify this finding in the future.

Peripherally or centrally inserted central catheters: what is the best vascular access device for cancer patients?

Choosing the appropriate vascular access device is a pivotal step to guarantee vessel health and preservation in cancer patients. The first turning point is the determination of the need for central venous catheters (CVCs) followed by the selection of the CVC that will complete the prescribed treatment while minimizing complications and satisfying patients' needs and expectations. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have steadily grown over the years as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters and totally implantable catheters based on several advantages including avoidance of placement-associated mechanical complications, easier transitions from hospital to intermediate care settings and home, but also increase in healthcare expenditure, supportive reimbursement policies, and ability to train existing staff. Notwithstanding PICCs have been perceived for a long time as associated with fewer complications, reduced costs, and higher patients' satisfaction compared to other CVCs, recent evidence has raised concerns about their safety profile without any benefits for longer-term costs neither for patients' satisfaction. This commentary offers a comprehensive overview on PICC-related (1) complications, (2) costs, and (3) patients' satisfaction to help healthcare professionals in the choice of the vascular device during their clinical practice. Based on the most recent literature, we finally suggested that the choice of the CVC should depend on the clinical situation with totally implantable catheters being the preferred device for patients who need intermittent long-term and high-dose chemotherapy, while PICCs may be a better choice for patients who need short-term chemotherapy or continuous short-term supportive therapy.

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.

Central venous catheter-related infections in hematology and oncology: 2020 updated guidelines on diagnosis, management, and prevention by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Cancer patients frequently require central venous catheters for therapy and parenteral nutrition and are at high risk of central venous catheter-related infections (CRIs). Moreover, CRIs prolong hospitalization, cause an excess in resource utilization and treatment cost, often delay anti-cancer treatment, and are associated with a significant increase in mortality in cancer patients. We therefore summoned a panel of experts by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) and updated our previous guideline on CRIs in cancer patients. After conducting systematic literature searches on PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases, video- and meeting-based consensus discussions were held. In the presented guideline, we summarize recommendations on definition, diagnosis, management, and prevention of CRIs in cancer patients including the grading of strength of recommendations and the respective levels of evidence. This guideline supports clinicians and researchers alike in the evidence-based decision-making in the management of CRIs in cancer patients.

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

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. Devices were all implanted in an outpatients' hospital facility, following predefined evidence-based institutional guidelines and protocols by a PICC-dedicated team at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, Italy, during the 12-month period from January 1 to December 31, 2019.

RESULTS

Five-hundred PICCs were implanted in a cohort of 482 patients during the time interval of this study. Thirty devices were overall removed (6.2%), 23 as a consequence of a complication occurred, and seven inadvertently. The inserted PICCs accounted for a total of 49,718 catheter days in situ, median duration was 85.5 days [interquartile range (IQR): 56-146]. Overall there were 42 (8.7%) complications, corresponding to 0.84 catheter-adverse events (CAE)/1000 PICC-days (95% CI: 0.61-1.14). There were N = 13 (2.7%) thromboses, N = 11 (2.3%) irreversible occlusions, N = 7 (1.5%) accidental removals, N = 5 (1.0%) infections [two Catheter Related Blood Stream Infection (CRBSI) and three exit site/local infection], N = 3 (0.6%) ruptures and N = 3 (0.6%) primary or secondary malpositions.

CONCLUSION

This large prospective study supports the increasing use of PICCs in adult oncology outpatients treated in specialized centers with chemotherapy for non-hematological malignancies. In this clinical setting, PICC failure occurred in 6% only of the inserted devices.

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to quantify the incidence of TIVAP-associated VTE and compare it with external central venous catheters (CVCs) in cancer patients through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies reporting on VTE risk associated with TIVAP were retrieved from medical literature databases. In publications without a comparison group, the pooled incidence of TIVAP-related VTE was calculated. For studies comparing TIVAPs with external CVCs, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of VTE.

RESULTS

In total, 80 studies (11 with a comparison group and 69 without) including 39 148 patients were retrieved. In the noncomparison studies, the overall symptomatic VTE incidence was 2.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24-3.28), and 0.08 (95 CI: 0.06-0.10) per 1000 catheter-days. This risk was highest when TIVAPs were inserted via the upper-extremity vein (3.54%, 95% CI: 2.94-4.76). Our meta-analysis of the case-control studies showed that TIVAPs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.43), and a trend for lower VTE risk compared with Hickman catheters (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50). Meta-regression models suggested that regional difference may significantly impact on the incidence of VTE associated with TIVAPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that the cancer patients with TIVAP are less likely to develop VTE compared with external CVCs. This should be considered when choosing the indwelling intravenous device for chemotherapy. However, more attention should be paid when choosing upper-extremity veins as the insertion site.

Latest advances in preventing thromboembolic disease in the ambulatory oncology patient

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often cited as a major cause of death and morbidity in cancer patients. Even a non-lethal VTE causes distress and is commonly perceived by patients as a set-back in the cancer journey and a threat to the cancer treatment. It is also known that the risk of VTE varies between cancers (cancer-related risk factors), between patients (patient-related risk factors), and also within the cancer journey of a single patient. Risk can increase during treatments like surgery and chemotherapy and decline during remission. Neither the low molecular weight heparins nor the vitamin K analogues have gained an established role in thromboprevention guidance other than in 'the high risk' patient, who remains a rather ambiguous entity. The recently published randomised studies of rivaroxaban and apixaban in moderate- to high-risk thrombosis patients, assigned by the Khorana Risk Score, has seen the inclusion of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in recent guidelines (e.g. the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2019 guidelines) for this indication. The ease of administration and the demonstrated greater patient adherence to oral agents has heightened the expectation that a practice-changing thromboprevention study in cancer patients should be realizable. However, key unmet needs that pose familiar challenges remain and as yet do not have satisfactory solutions. Anticoagulants carry risks of bleeding that are higher in the cancer population. There is therefore the challenge of sufficient risk reduction of VTE from the intervention balanced against the number of patients that may be harmed from bleeding. There is also the challenge of penetrating the risk threshold beyond which oncologists would deem thromboprevention a clinically meaningful praxis. Thus, identifying the high-risk groups of patients or targeting the length or timing of the thromboprevention to when the risks are highest are major questions that remain the subject of ongoing research. Notably all this is taking place against a backdrop of changing therapeutics for many cancers (e.g. targeted agents, checkpoint inhibitors and combinations) and their assorted impact on VTE incidence. In this review, past data for the ambulatory cancer patient are summarised, the latest evidence for the direct oral anticoagulants apixaban and rivaroxaban are analysed and the challenges of identifying the high-risk patients that have the greater chance of benefiting from thromboprophylaxis are discussed.

Comparison of PICC and TIVAP in chemotherapy for patients with thyroid cancer

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implantable venous-access ports (TIVAP) were compared in chemotherapy for patients with thyroid cancer. A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with thyroid cancer who were treated with PICC and TIVAP for chemotherapy in Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2013 to March 2018. Patients in the PICC and TIVAP groups were compared in terms of the success rate, indwelling time, complications, quality of life and nursing satisfaction. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The indwelling time in the TIVAP group was significantly longer than that in the PICC group (P<0.05). The incidence rate of complications in the TIVAP group (0%) was significantly lower than that in the PICC group (14.58%) (P<0.05). The quality of life score in the PICC group was significantly lower than that in the TIVAP group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the nursing satisfaction score between the two groups (P>0.05). In conclusion, as an ideal venous access to chemotherapy for thyroid cancer, TIVAP has longer indwelling time and fewer adverse reactions and improves the quality of life of the patients.

Comparison of outcomes of central venous catheters in patients with solid and hematologic neoplasms: an Italian real-world analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although many reports have analyzed the outcomes of central venous catheters (CVCs) in oncologic and oncohematologic patients, current guidelines do not routinely recommend a specific type of CVC over the other.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 178 patients with CVCs referred to an Italian specialized cancer center between January 2016 and December 2018. The analysis compares midterm peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) with long-term centrally inserted catheters, including totally implanted ports and tunneled catheters with central insertion (tCVCs).

RESULTS

A total of 130 PICCs (73%) and 48 tCVCs (27%) were analyzed. The overall complication rate was significantly increased in the PICC cohort compared to the tCVC cohort (43.1% vs 25%, respectively; p = 0.037), leading to complication-related device removal in 30.8% of PICCs vs 12.5% of tCVCs (p = 0.013). No significant differences in terms of catheter-related thromboses (p = 0.676) or catheter-related infections (p = 0.140) were detected. Nonthrombotic obstructions were significantly higher in the PICC group compared to the tCVC cohort (p = 0.006). Overall complication-free survival was significantly longer for tCVCs compared to PICCs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.262; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.128-0.536; p < 0.0001), as well as obstruction-free survival (HR, 0.082; 95% CI, 0.018-0.372; p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the type of CVC was independently correlated with the occurrence of any complication (HR, 0.273; 95% CI, 0.135-0.553; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This Italian real-world experience suggests that PICCs are associated with a higher risk of overall complications compared with tCVCs. Catheter choice in oncologic patients should be guided by treatment type and duration, risk-benefit assessment, patient preferences, and compliance.

CE Article: Transfer Rate of Pathogens Through In Vitro Contaminated Venous Port Membranes Varies With Species, Concentration, and Injection Technique

Local SVP infection is a common and potentially avoidable complication. Local SVP infection is usually verified by cultures. The transfer rate of pathogens across the SVP membrane may be reduced by applying a positive-pressure flow technique when puncturing the membrane.

Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial

BACKGROUND

A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications.

METHOD

We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models.

RESULT

PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs. Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy.

Nurses' knowledge of the management of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction: A descriptive phenomenological study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this research is to describe and understand nurses' knowledge of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction management in developing countries. This research aims to identify the reasons why nurses lack knowledge of the management of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction and do not use the drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction management techniques recommended by the Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice.

METHODS

The descriptive phenomenological method was used to investigate nurses' knowledge of the management of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 17 nurses from three hospitals in northeast China were used in this qualitative study. Data collection and analysis were conducted simultaneously during the research. Nvivo software 12.0 was used to organize and code the data, and Colaizzi's seven phases of data analysis were used to form themes.

FINDINGS

The findings showed that there is inconsistency in nurses' knowledge of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction and its management, and we suggest reasons for this phenomenon.

CONCLUSION

This research has shown that inconsistent practice in the management of drug-induced peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction is a more complex issue than originally thought. These inconsistencies are related to time pressure on nurses, nurses' knowledge of peripherally inserted central catheter obstruction, and limitations of the clinical work model.