Liu Y, Li LL, Xu L, Feng DD, Cao Y, Mao XY, Zheng J, Jin F, Chen B. Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Biomed Res Int 2020;
2020:9082924. [PMID:
32104708 DOI:
10.1155/2020/9082924]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2019] [Accepted: 10/15/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Objectives
This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Design and Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. Eligibility Criteria. Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg's and Egger's tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity.
Results
There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with.
Conclusions
This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.
Collapse