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

A retrospective cohort study of implantable venous access port-related and peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies in China

Objective

We explored the differences in deep venous catheterization-associated complications between patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central catheter placement and such patients after implantable venous access port catheterization.

Introduction

peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports are the most popular devices used for chemotherapy. However, no study has revealed differences between peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports in Chinese patients with hematological malignancies.

Methods

The clinical data of 322 patients with hematological malignancies who were treated from January 1, 2020 to December 30, 2021 were included in a retrospective cohort study. Postoperative color Doppler ultrasonography and follow-up results were used to compare the incidence rates of deep venous catheterization -associated complications after peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports catheterization.

Results

The relative risk of catheter-related complications considering the type of device was 8.3 (95% CI = 3.0-22.8). In addition, chi-square segmentation analysis revealed a significant difference in the complication rate between the internal jugular vein and the basilic vein (χ2 = 22.002, p < 0.0001) and between the subclavian vein and the basilic vein (χ2 = 28.940, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Implantable venous access ports are safer than peripherally inserted central catheters for Chinese patients with hematological malignancies. The implantation of implantable venous access ports could be firstly considered for systematic anti-cancer treatment.

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.