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

Overview

Journal Support Care Cancer

Specialties Critical Care
Oncology

Date 2013 Sep 6

PMID 24005884

Citations 45

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

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implanted port catheters in patients with breast cancer: a analysis of the PICCPORT randomised controlled trial.

Utas A, Seifert S, Taxbro K BJA Open. 2025; 13:100377.

PMID: 39991709 PMC: 11847134. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2025.100377.

Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.

Qiu J, Huang S, Wen P, Jiang Y, Luo Z, Zhang W J Cancer. 2025; 16(4):1127-1136.

PMID: 39895783 PMC: 11786043. DOI: 10.7150/jca.103631.

Clinical applications and research progress of totally implantable venous access ports: a literature review.

Huang X, Li X, Deng J, Chen J, Qian L Front Oncol. 2025; 14:1519728.

PMID: 39886665 PMC: 11779708. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1519728.

Glucocorticoid use and parenteral nutrition are risk factors for catheter-related bloodstream infection: a retrospective study.

Huang L, Li S, Jiang R, Lei S, Wu J, Huang L Asian Biomed (Res Rev News). 2024; 18(3):109-115.

PMID: 39175949 PMC: 11337845. DOI: 10.2478/abm-2024-0016.

Psychological experiences and needs of tumor patients with implanted intravenous infusion ports: a qualitative study.

Zhu L, Li K, He Q, Liu L Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1392416.

PMID: 38817894 PMC: 11137243. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1392416.

References

de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, Homerin M, Hmissi A, Cassidy J . Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18(16):2938-47. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.16.2938. View

Kinhult S, Albertsson M, Eskilsson J, Cwikiel M . Antithrombotic treatment in protection against thrombogenic effects of 5-fluorouracil on vascular endothelium: a scanning microscopy evaluation. Scanning. 2001; 23(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1002/sca.4950230101. View

Douillard J, Cunningham D, Roth A, Navarro M, James R, Karasek P . Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2000; 355(9209):1041-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02034-1. View

Verso M, Agnelli G, Bertoglio S, Di Somma F, Paoletti F, Ageno W . 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. 2005; 23(18):4057-62. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.084. View

Pucheu A, Evans J, Thomas D, Scheuble C, Pucheu M . Doppler ultrasonography of normal neck veins. J Clin Ultrasound. 1994; 22(6):367-73. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.1870220603. View

Edwards R, Klaus M, Matthews E, McCullen C, Bona R, Rickles F . Heparin abolishes the chemotherapy-induced increase in plasma fibrinopeptide A levels. Am J Med. 1990; 89(1):25-8. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(90)90093-s. View

Worth L, Seymour J, Slavin M . Infective and thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancy: prospective evaluation of nontunneled devices. Support Care Cancer. 2008; 17(7):811-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-008-0561-7. View

Yap Y, Karapetis C, Lerose S, Iyer S, Koczwara B . Reducing the risk of peripherally inserted central catheter line complications in the oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006; 15(4):342-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2006.00664.x. View

Marinella M, Kathula S, Markert R . Spectrum of upper-extremity deep venous thrombosis in a community teaching hospital. Heart Lung. 2000; 29(2):113-7. View

10.

Tesselaar M, Ouwerkerk J, Nooy M, Rosendaal F, Osanto S . Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40(15):2253-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.06.023. View

11.

Kappers-Klunne M, Degener J, Stijnen T, Abels J . Complications from long-term indwelling central venous catheters in hematologic patients with special reference to infection. Cancer. 1989; 64(8):1747-52. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19891015)64:8<1747::aid-cncr2820640832>3.0.co;2-f. View

12.

Marnejon T, Angelo D, Abu Abdou A, Gemmel D . Risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters. J Vasc Access. 2012; 13(2):231-8. DOI: 10.5301/jva.5000039. View

13.

Groeger J, Lucas A, Thaler H, Brown A, Kiehn T, Armstrong D . Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119(12):1168-74. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-119-12-199312150-00003. View

14.

Walshe L, Malak S, Eagan J, Sepkowitz K . Complication rates among cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(15):3276-81. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.135. View

15.

Findlay M, Cunningham D . Chemotherapy of carcinoma of the stomach. Cancer Treat Rev. 1993; 19(1):29-44. DOI: 10.1016/0305-7372(93)90025-m. View

16.

Lee A . Cancer and thromboembolic disease: pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev. 2002; 28(3):137-40. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-7372(02)00044-0. View

17.

Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L . 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. 2009; 20(5):935-40. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn701. View

18.

Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, Fahlke J, Peters B, Bischoff J . An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008; 35(3):241-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020. View

19.

Sawayama H, Hayashi N, Watanabe M, Takamori H, Beppu T, Baba H . The central vein access port and catheter in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a retrospective study of 101 patients. Surg Today. 2011; 42(1):29-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-011-0016-5. View

20.

Hsieh C, Weng H, Huang W, Wang W, Kao C, Lu M . Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2009; 15(37):4709-14. PMC: 2754519. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.4709. View