Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients

Background and aim:

Ninety-four thousand gynecological cancer diagnoses are performed each year in the United States. The majority of these tumors require systemic adjuvant therapy. Sustained venous access was overcome by indwelling long-term central venous catheter (CVC). The best choice of which CVC to use is often arbitrary or dependent on physician confidence. This meta-analysis aims to compare PORT and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) outcomes during adjuvant treatment for gynecological cancer.

Methods:

Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (PRISMA)were used to conduct the meta-analysis.

Results:

1320 patients were included, 794 belonging to the PORT group and 526 to the PICC group. Total complication rates were fewer in the PORT group, p = 0.05. CVC malfunction was less frequent in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p <0.01. Finally, thrombotic events were less expressed in the PORT group than in the PICC group, p = 0.02. No difference was found in operative complication, migration, malposition, extravasation, infection, and complication requiring catheter removal.

Conclusions:

PORT had fewer thrombotic complications and fewer malfunction problems than PICC devices. Unless specific contraindications, PORTs can be preferred for systemic treatment in gynecological cancer patients. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Performance evaluation of the automated nucleated red blood cell count of five commercial hematological analyzers

INTRODUCTION

Recent automated hematology analyzers (HAs) can identify and report nucleated red blood cells (NRBC) count as a separate population out of white blood cells (WBC). The aim of this study was to investigate the analytical performances of NRBC enumeration on five top of the range HAs.

METHODS

We evaluated the within-run and between-day precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), and limit of quantitation (LoQ) of XE-2100 and XN-module (Sysmex), ADVIA 2120i (Siemens), BC-6800 (Mindray), and UniCel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter). Automated NRBC counts were also compared with optical microscopy (OM).

RESULTS

The limits of detection for NRBC of the BC-6800, XN-module, XE-2100, UniCel DxH 800, and ADVIA 2120i are 0.035×10⁹ /L, 0.019×10⁹ /L, 0.067×10⁹ /L, 0.038×10⁹ /L, and 0.167×10⁹ /L, respectively. Our data indicated excellent performance in terms of precision. The agreement with OM was excellent for BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 (Bias 0.023, 0.019, and 0.033×10⁹ /L, respectively). ADVIA 2120i displayed a significant constant error and UniCel DxH 800 both proportional and small constant error.

CONCLUSION

Regards to NRBC counting, the performances shown by BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 are excellent also a low count, ADVIA 2120i and UniCel DxH 800 need to be improved.