Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters (PICC) versus totally implantable venous access device (PORT) for chemotherapy administration: a meta-analysis on gynecological cancer patients.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 11 2021
03 11 2021
Historique:
received:
28
05
2021
accepted:
28
05
2021
entrez:
5
11
2021
pubmed:
6
11
2021
medline:
12
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34738565
doi: 10.23750/abm.v92i5.11844
pmc: PMC8689318
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2021257Références
ISRN Dermatol. 2013 May 08;2013:856541
pubmed: 23738141
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Vasc Access. 2014 Jul-Aug;15(4):311-6
pubmed: 24474523
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Mar;24(3):1397-403
pubmed: 26342484
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Sep;205(3):514-6; author reply 516-7
pubmed: 17765171
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;122(6):734-741
pubmed: 31005243
Ann Oncol. 2009 May;20(5):935-40
pubmed: 19179550
J Vasc Access. 2015 Jan-Feb;16(1):38-41
pubmed: 25198809
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1997 Oct;6(4):813-30
pubmed: 9309095
J Vasc Access. 2012 Apr-Jun;13(2):215-20
pubmed: 22139743
Acta Haematol. 2001;106(1-2):33-42
pubmed: 11549775
Anesthesiology. 2020 Jan;132(1):8-43
pubmed: 31821240
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v152-68
pubmed: 26314776
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 21;(8):CD008942
pubmed: 27544827
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Aug;35(4):751-64
pubmed: 21922348
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Cancer Nurs. 2020 Nov/Dec;43(6):455-467
pubmed: 31464692
Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2017 Feb 23;11:1179554917691031
pubmed: 28469510
Ann Oncol. 2008 Jan;19(1):9-15
pubmed: 17846025
Eur Radiol. 2008 Oct;18(10):2333-44
pubmed: 18458909
Int J Lab Hematol. 2007 Aug;29(4):261-78
pubmed: 17617077
World J Crit Care Med. 2014 Nov 04;3(4):80-94
pubmed: 25374804
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
pubmed: 19489710
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670