Comparison of totally implantable venous-access port and peripherally inserted central catheter in chemotherapy of breast cancer patients

doi:10.3877/cma. j. issn.1674-0807.2014.02.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and totally implantable venous-access port (TIVAP) in breast cancer patients with intravenous chemotherapy.

Methods

Totally 297 breast cancer patients who underwent postoperative chemotherapy after breast cancer surgery in our department from May 2011 to April 2013 were divided into PICC group (n=187) and TIVAP group (n=110). Successful catheterization rate, complication rate and quality of life during intravenous chemotherapy were compared. All data were analyzed using t test and Chi-square test.

Results

The successful one-time catheterization rate in TIVAP group was slightly lower than that in PICC group [84.55%(93/110)vs 92.51%(173/187),χ²=4.70,P=0.03]; complication rate in TIVAP group was lower than that in PICC group [1.82%(2/110)vs 9.09%(17/187),χ² =6.12,P=0.01]; compared with TIVAP group, the quality of life of patients in PICC group declined significantly [the proportion of the patients with good life quality in PICC group vs that in TIVAP group: 90%(170/187)vs 100%(110/110),χ²=10.61, P=0.00].

Conclusion

In spite of higher cost and more complicated operation, TIVAP has some advantages over PICC, such as longer retention time, fewer complications, longer catheter maintenance intervals and less impact on life quality of patients,which is feasible for intravenous chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Key words: Catheterization, central vein, Infusion pumps, implantable, Breast neoplasms, Chemotherapy

Tieqiang Bi, Jun Zhou, Rui Wang, Hai Liu. Comparison of totally implantable venous-access port and peripherally inserted central catheter in chemotherapy of breast cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), 2014, 08(02): 103-108.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhrxbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma. j. issn.1674-0807.2014.02.007

https://zhrxbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2014/V08/I02/103

Figures/Tables 4

References 15

[1]	Gong P, Huang XE, Chen CY, et al. Comparison of complications of peripherally inserted central catheters with ultrasound guidance or conventional methods in cancer patients[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev,2012,13(5): 1873-1875.
[2]	Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines[J]. J Clin Oncol,1984,2(3): 187-193.
[3]	Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, et al. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment[J]. Surgery, 1982, 92(4): 706-712.
[4]	王卿炜. 乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结清扫术中经腋静脉分支植入静脉输液港的应用研究[D]. 福建: 福建医科大学,2011.
[5]	Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury[J]. Lancet Oncol,2002,3(11): 684-692.
[6]	Kusminsky RE. Complications of central venous catheterization[J]. Am Coll Surg,2007,204(4): 681-696.
[7]	Lefrant JY, Cuvillon P, Bénézet JF, et al. Pulsed Doppler ultrasonography guidance for catheterization of the subclavian vein: a randomized study[J]. Anesthesiology,1998, 88(5): 1195-1201.
[8]	Dede D, Akmangit I, Yildirim ZN, et al. Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol,2008,34(12): 1340-1343.
[9]	Yip D, Funaki B. Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients[J]. Acta Radiol,2002,43(4): 371-375.
[10]	Osawa H,Hasegawa J,Yamakawa K,et al. Ultrasound-guided infraclavicular axillary vein puncture is effective to avoid pinchoff syndrome: a long-term follow-up study[J]. Surg Today,2013,43(7): 745-750.
[11]	陈显春,宋爽,王寅欢,等.乳腺癌患者怀疑导管相关血流感染拔除导管三例报道[J/CD]. 中华乳腺病杂志: 电子版,2010,4(5): 602-604.
[12]	Lebeaux D, Larroque B, Gellen-Dautremer J,et al. Clinical outcome after a totally implantable venous access port-related infection in cancer patients: a prospective study and review of the literature[J]. Medicine (Baltimore),2012,91(6): 309-318.
[13]	Covey AM, Toro-Pape FW, Thornton RH, et al. Totally implantable venous access device placement by interventional radiologists: are prophylactic antibiotics necessary? [J]. J Vasc Interv Radiol,2012,23(3): 358-362.
[14]	Ahn SJ, Kim HC, Chung JW, et al. Ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided placement of central venous ports via internal jugular vein: retrospective analysis of 1254 port implantations at a single center[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2012,13(3): 314-323.
[15]	Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, et al. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation--high success and low complication rate[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2009, 69(3): 517-522.

组别	总例数	一次穿刺成功		二次及以上穿刺成功
组别	总例数	例数	百分率(%)	例数	百分率(%)
PICC组	187	173	92.51	14	7.49
TIVAP组	110	93	84.55	17	15.45
χ ²值		4.70
P值		0.03

组别	总例数	一次穿刺成功		二次及以上穿刺成功
组别	总例数	例数	百分率(%)	例数	百分率(%)
PICC组	187	173	92.51	14	7.49
TIVAP组	110	93	84.55	17	15.45
χ ²值		4.70
P值		0.03

组别	总例数	无并发症		有并发症
组别	总例数	例数	百分率(%)	例数	百分率(%)
PICC组	187	170	90.91	17	9.09
TIVAP组	110	108	98.18	2	1.82
χ ²值		6.12
P值		0.01

组别	总例数	无并发症		有并发症
组别	总例数	例数	百分率(%)	例数	百分率(%)
PICC组	187	170	90.91	17	9.09
TIVAP组	110	108	98.18	2	1.82
χ ²值		6.12
P值		0.01

组别	总例数	生活质量较好		生活质量较差
组别	总例数	例数	百分比(%)	例数	百分比(%)
PICC组	187	170	90.91	17	9.09
TIVAP组	110	110	100	0	0
χ ²值		10.61
P值		0.00

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export