Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2014

01-01-2014 | Original Article

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

Authors: G. S. Patel, K. Jain, R. Kumar, A. H. Strickland, L. Pellegrini, J. Slavotinek, M. Eaton, W. McLeay, T. Price, M. Ly, S. Ullah, B. Koczwara, G. Kichenadasse, C. S. Karapetis

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.

Methods

Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.

Results

Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86, P = 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days, P = 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %, P = 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.

Conclusions

Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M et al (2000) Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:2938–2947PubMed
2.
Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD et al (2000) Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 355:1041–1047CrossRefPubMed
3.
Findlay M, Cunningham D (1993) Chemotherapy of carcinoma of the stomach. Cancer Treat Rev 19:29–44CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kappers-Klunne MC, Degener JE, Stijnen T, Abels J (1989) Complications from long-term indwelling central venous catheters in hematologic patients with special reference to infection. Cancer 64:1747–1752CrossRefPubMed
5.
Worth LJ, Seymour JF, Slavin MA (2009) Infective and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancy: prospective evaluation of nontunneled devices. Support Care Cancer 17:811–818CrossRefPubMed
6.
Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT et al (1993) Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 119:1168–1174CrossRefPubMed
7.
Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS et al (2009) Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 15:4709–4714CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B et al (2009) An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:241–246CrossRefPubMed
9.
Sawayama H, Hayashi N, Watanabe M et al (2012) The central vein access port and catheter in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective study of 101 patients. Surg Today 42:29–34CrossRefPubMed
10.
Walshe LJ, Malak SF, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA (2002) Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol 20:3276–3281CrossRefPubMed
11.
Sideris L LY, Barette G, et al. (2001) Long term central venous access for chemotherapy. PICC line by the radiologist or broviac by the surgeon? Eur J Cancer, 37: absract 1325.
12.
Last KMJ, Oakley C, Lofts F (1998) Long-term intravenous access devices: superiority of peripherally inserted central cannulae (PICC) over hickman catheters (HC). Ann Oncol 9:142
13.
Yap YS, Karapetis C, Lerose S et al (2006) Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 15:342–347CrossRef
14.
Webb A, Cunningham D, Scarffe JH et al (1997) Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:261–267PubMed
15.
Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2009) Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 20:935–940CrossRefPubMed
16.
Tesselaar ME, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy MA et al (2004) Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 40:2253–2259CrossRefPubMed
17.
Marnejon T, Angelo D, Abu Abdou A, Gemmel D (2012) Risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Access 13:231–238CrossRefPubMed
18.
Marinella MA, Kathula SK, Markert RJ (2000) Spectrum of upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community teaching hospital. Heart Lung 29:113–117CrossRefPubMed
19.
Pucheu A, Evans J, Thomas D et al (1994) Doppler ultrasonography of normal neck veins. J Clin Ultrasound 22:367–373CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lee AY (2002) Cancer and thromboembolic disease: pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev 28:137–140CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kinhult S, Albertsson M, Eskilsson J, Cwikiel M (2001) Antithrombotic treatment in protection against thrombogenic effects of 5-fluorouracil on vascular endothelium: a scanning microscopy evaluation. Scanning 23:1–8CrossRefPubMed
22.
Edwards RL, Klaus M, Matthews E et al (1990) Heparin abolishes the chemotherapy-induced increase in plasma fibrinopeptide A levels. Am J Med 89:25–28CrossRefPubMed
23.
Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S et al (2005) Enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism associated with central vein catheter: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23:4057–4062CrossRefPubMed
24.
Couban S, Goodyear M, Burnell M et al (2005) Randomized placebo-controlled study of low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:4063–4069CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
G. S. Patel
K. Jain
R. Kumar
A. H. Strickland
L. Pellegrini
J. Slavotinek
M. Eaton
W. McLeay
T. Price
M. Ly
S. Ullah
B. Koczwara
G. Kichenadasse
C. S. Karapetis
Publication date
01-01-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2014 Go to the issue

Review Article

Cognitive impairment in gynecologic cancers: a systematic review of current approaches to diagnosis and treatment

Erratum

Erratum to: Initial development of the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi)

Original Article

Development and initial evaluation of electronic Children's International Mucositis Evaluation Scale (eChIMES) for children with cancer

Original Article

Patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a prospective case–control study

Original Article

Agreement between telerehabilitation involving caregivers and face-to-face clinical assessment of lymphedema in breast cancer survivors

Original Article

Bone health issues in breast cancer survivors: a Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits