Use of a peripherally implanted subcutaneous permanent central venous access device for chemotherapy--the Singapore General Hospital experience

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.

The Management of Totally Implanted Venous Ports in the Ambulatory Oncologic Patient

Totally implanted venous access devices (ports) are widely used in all oncology units, because of the many advantages that they offer if compared to external central venous catheters, particularly in terms of safety. Nonetheless, infection, lumen occlusion and venous thrombosis may still occur, and they are often caused or facilitated by inappropriate insertion or inappropriate management. Reviewing the management protocols of ports in ambulatory patients of 50 Italian oncology units, we have been able to detect the lack of common standardized behavior regarding the technical management of these devices: in addition, some aspects of management differ significantly from what suggested by international guidelines.

Totally Implantable Central Venous Access: 15 years' experience in a single unit

The use of Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Systems (T.I.C.V.A.S.) has become an essential aid for those patients requiring extended intravenous infusion treatments or complete parenteral nutrition, and for whom the peripheral venous system may be or may become inadequate for infusions. This paper describes fifteen years of experience in the use of totally implantable systems. It examines the application methods as well as the different systems, complications, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and cost/benefit ratio. We examined 261 patients observed during a period of approximately 15 years. A surgical team carried out the operations for these patients in an operating room under the strictest asepsis conditions. The Port-a-Cath central venous access systems were used in 221 cases (84.6%) and the Pas-Port peripheral venous access systems were used in 40 cases (15.3%). We observed no particular differences between the different types of systems implanted. The total rate of complications was 11.7%, 0.7% of which were positioning complications, 4.2% stability complications, and 6.1% management complications. There were 2 cases (0.76%) of defective performance of the implanted system. We found patient satisfaction with the method average in 19.85% of the cases, good in 70.23% and excellent in 11.9%. Quality of life improved because of reduced total hospitalization time and more convenient treatment management. Regarding the cost/benefit ratio we also found that the benefits outnumbered costs. In connection with the cost of the system the possibility of home management leads to a marked decrease in hospitalization expenditure. Today these systems should be considered as being essential in the correct management of the patient requiring medium-to-long-term infusion treatment. On the whole these treatments are well accepted by the patient and the possibility of home or day hospital management allows a marked reduction in hospitalization, which affects both social life and costs. The incidence of complications was found to be relatively low considering that most of them are the result of poor management of the system by the paramedical personnel or by the relatives of the patients. In this sense, better education in the management of the system would further optimize results. (The Journal of Vascular Access 2001; 2: 161-167).

[Protocol for use of subcutaneous reservoir in a gynecological oncology unit]

Use of subcutaneous reservoir has been extended in recent years in response to the need of chronic intravenous treatments. Some cancer patients and need to have a venous access maintained. In them is not advisable to use a peripheral vein, the sclerosing effect and/or irritating on the endothelium have many of the drugs administered, and the numerous venous punctures to which are often subjected. In this regard, the establishment of a permanent subcutaneous reservoir at the central level can obtain blood samples and administer all types of intravenous therapies. Although it also has the advantage of a low incidence of infections, the possibility of outpatient use and well accepted by patients. The system consists of a silicone venous catheter that is placed below the subcutaneous tissue and provides a vascular access, easy to find, secure and durable. Despite its frequent use today, this technique is not completely without risk, and among the possible complications of infectious diseases, thrombosis, catheter migration, occlusion, pneumothorax or vascular erosion. The aim of this study was to describe the protocol using the subcutaneous reservoir held in the unit of gynecologic oncology, University Hospital Virgen de las Nieves in Granada.