Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve

Remote Assisted Home Dressing vs. Outpatient Medication of Central Venous Catheter (Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter): Clinical Trial A.R.C.O. (Remote Assistance Oncology Caregiver)

BACKGROUND

Management of PICC dressing can be performed at home by the patient through adequate training and telenursing. This trial verifies that the incidence of catheter-related complications in home patients, assisted by telenursing, is not greater than that observed in outpatients.

METHODS

This clinical trial is composed of 72 patients with malignant tumors who underwent long-term chemotherapy with PICC insertion. They were randomly divided into an experimental group (33 cases) and a calibration group (39 cases). The control group received outpatient dressing for the PICC at the hospital, while the experimental group received a telenursing intervention about the management of the PICC. The incidence of catheter-related infections, the ability of self-management, and a rough cost/benefit estimation were compared between the two groups. This trial was performed according to the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

RESULTS

The two groups do not significantly differ in relation to age, sex, and PICCs in terms of the body side insertion, the type of dressing, and the agents used for cleaning. The analysis of the results showed that in the home-managed group, the clinical events reported during the connection were higher when compared with the outpatient group (p < 0.001). The patients in the homecare group developed frequent complications resulting from skin redness (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of telenursing for patient education in cancer centers can reduce nurses' working time, improving the self-management capacity of patients with a long-term PICC. This trial was retrospectively registered with the Clinical Trial Gov on the 18 May 2023 with registration number NCT05880420.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Versus Central Venous Catheters for in-Hospital Parenteral Nutrition

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) by a vascular access team (VAT) versus central venous catheters (CVCs) for in-hospital total parenteral nutrition (TPN).

METHODS

The study used a cost-effectiveness analysis based on observational data retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records from 2018 to 2019 in a teaching hospital. We included all interventional procedures requiring PICCs or CVCs with the indication of TPN. We recorded the costs of insertion, maintenance, removal, and complications. The main outcome measure was the incidence rate of catheter-associated bacteremia per 1000 catheter days. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the hospital perspective within the context of the publicly funded Spanish health system. Confidence intervals for costs and effectiveness differences were calculated using bootstrap methods.

RESULTS

We analyzed 233 CVCs and 292 PICCs from patients receiving TPN. Average duration was longer for PICC (13 versus 9.4 days, P < 0.001). The main reason for complications in both groups was suspected infection (9.77% CVC versus 5.18% PICC). Complication rates due to bacteremia were 2.44% for CVC and 1.15% for PICC. The difference in the incidence of bacteremia per 1000 catheter days was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, -0.89 to 3.90). Overall, costs were lower for PICCs than for CVCs: the difference in mean overall costs was -€559.9 (95% confidence interval, -€919.9 to -€225.4). Uncertainty analysis showed 86.37% of results with lower costs and higher effectiveness for PICC versus CVC.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of PICC by VAT compared with CVC for TPN reduces costs and may decrease the rate of bacteremia.

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.

Percutaneous implantation of peripherally inserted totally implantable venous access systems in the forearm in adolescent patients

BACKGROUND

Children with different underlying malignant diseases require long-term central venous access. As for port systems in a pectoral position, peripherally implanted port systems in the forearm revealed high levels of technical and clinical success in adult cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the technical and clinical outcomes of percutaneous central venous port implantation in the forearm in adolescents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between April 2010 and August 2020, 32 children ages 9 to 17 years with underlying malignancy received 35 totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) in the forearm. All venous port systems were peripherally inserted under ultrasound guidance. Correct catheter placement was controlled by fluoroscopy. As primary endpoints, the technical success, rate of complications and catheter maintenance were analyzed. Secondary endpoints were the side of implantation, vein of catheter access, laboratory results on the day of the procedure, procedural radiation exposure, amount of contrast agent and reasons for port device removal.

RESULTS

Percutaneous TIVAP placement under sonographic guidance was technically successful in 34 of 35 procedures (97.1%). Procedure-related complications did not occur. During the follow-up, 13,684 catheter days were analyzed, revealing 11 complications (0.8 per 1,000 catheter-duration days), Of these 11 complications, 7 were major and 10 occurred late. In seven cases, the port device had to be removed; removal-related complications did not occur.

CONCLUSION

Peripheral TIVAP placement in the forearms of children is a feasible, effective and safe technique with good midterm outcome. As results are comparable with standard access routes, this technique may be offered as an alternative when intermittent venous access is required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Economic evaluation of peripherally inserted central catheter and other venous access devices: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

With the widespread use of peripherally inserted central catheters, plenty of studies have compared peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices to choose the most appropriate device in different clinical scenarios. Economic attributes are one of the important influencing factors in the selection of venous access devices. Several economic evaluation studies have been conducted in this area, but the evaluation methods, contents, outcomes, and quality of these economic studies have not been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to map the existing research on the economic evaluations of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices to provide economic evidence for decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device. Second, we appraised the quality of economic evaluation studies in this area to highlight methodological weaknesses and provide an outline for the normative application of this methodology for future research.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken through 11 databases from inception until 11 March 2019, to identify economic evaluation studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices. After screening articles and extracting data independently, we summarized methods, contents, and outcomes of the included studies and appraised their methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included. Among the six studies comparing peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, four studies performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and noted that peripherally inserted central catheters were more cost-effective than peripheral intravenous catheters. Two studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods but reached different conclusions. Seven of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with central venous catheters. They pointed out that the catheter insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for central venous catheters in developed countries, whereas the opposite conclusion was reached in developing countries. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter maintenance and catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. Six of the included studies performed a cost analysis to compare peripherally inserted central catheters with vascular access ports. They pointed out that the insertion costs of peripherally inserted central catheters were lower than those for vascular access ports, and the maintenance costs were higher than those for vascular access ports. Conversely, conclusions regarding the costs for catheter insertion and maintenance/removal were inconsistent. In addition, the methodological quality of the included studies had plenty of deficiencies, including no discounting, no sensitivity analysis, no incremental analysis, a lack of validity of costs and effectiveness, and so on.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review highlighted the desperate paucity of economic evaluation studies of peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices in amount, evaluation contents, and economic evaluation methods. The conclusions of the cost-effectiveness analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were consistent. Conversely, the conclusions of the cost analysis of peripherally inserted central catheters with other venous access devices were inconsistent mainly in the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters with peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters, and vascular access ports during the insertion and maintenance/removal periods. This review also highlighted many methodological issues of economic evaluations in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more high-quality economic evaluation studies on peripherally inserted central catheters and other venous access devices by performing cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, or cost-benefit analysis from catheter insertion to removal to provide evidence for clinical practitioners, patients, and decision-makers to choose a suitable venous access device in different clinical scenarios.

[Central venous access in interventional radiology]

Some patients require iteratives intravenous administrations on a central catheter, for example in oncology or infectiology, which represents a challenge for ambulatory treatment. Interventional radiology could provide solutions with the implant and monitoring of PICC-lines and ports. These are implanted in sterile environment and under imaging guidance in an interventional radiology room by an operator and with a paramedical team that need to be experienced. This development focus on the interest of one method with respect to the other, as well as the differents ways to do, the complications that could arise and the monitoring of these devices.