Comparison of outcomes of central venous catheters in patients with solid and hematologic neoplasms: an Italian real-world analysis

A retrospective cohort study of implantable venous access port-related and peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in patients with hematological malignancies in China

Objective

We explored the differences in deep venous catheterization-associated complications between patients with hematological malignancies after peripherally inserted central catheter placement and such patients after implantable venous access port catheterization.

Introduction

peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports are the most popular devices used for chemotherapy. However, no study has revealed differences between peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports in Chinese patients with hematological malignancies.

Methods

The clinical data of 322 patients with hematological malignancies who were treated from January 1, 2020 to December 30, 2021 were included in a retrospective cohort study. Postoperative color Doppler ultrasonography and follow-up results were used to compare the incidence rates of deep venous catheterization -associated complications after peripherally inserted central catheters and implantable venous access ports catheterization.

Results

The relative risk of catheter-related complications considering the type of device was 8.3 (95% CI = 3.0-22.8). In addition, chi-square segmentation analysis revealed a significant difference in the complication rate between the internal jugular vein and the basilic vein (χ2 = 22.002, p < 0.0001) and between the subclavian vein and the basilic vein (χ2 = 28.940, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Implantable venous access ports are safer than peripherally inserted central catheters for Chinese patients with hematological malignancies. The implantation of implantable venous access ports could be firstly considered for systematic anti-cancer treatment.

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

RESULTS

From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

Clinical characteristics of peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a prospective and observational study

PURPOSE

The incidence of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related complications is higher in cancer patients than in noncancer patients. However, the pattern of specific complication occurrence over time remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of PICC-related complications in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated hospital in Western China. Cancer patients undergoing PICC insertion for anticancer treatment were recruited and followed up until the first week after catheter removal. Any complications, including occurrence time and outcomes, were recorded. The trajectory of specific PICC-related complications over time were identify based on the Kaplan‒Meier curve analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 233 patients analyzed, nearly half (n = 112/233, 48.1%) developed 150 PICC-related complication events. The most common were symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) (n = 37/233, 15.9%), medical adhesive-related skin injury (MARSI) (n = 27/233, 11.6%), and catheter dislodgement (n = 17/233, 7.3%), accounting for 54.0% (n = 81/150, 54.0%) of total complications events. According to Kaplan‒Meier curve analysis, symptomatic CRT, pain, phlebitis, and insertion site bleeding were classified as the "early onset" group mainly occurring within the first month post-insertion. Catheter fracture and catheter-related bloodstream infection were classified as the "late onset" group occurring after the second month post-insertion. MARSI, catheter dislodgement, occlusion, and insertion site infection were classified as the "persistent onset" group persistently occurring during the whole catheter-dwelling period. Among the 112 patients with PICC-related complications, 50 (44.6%) patients had their catheters removed due to complications, and 62 (55.4%) patients successfully retained their catheters until treatment completion through conventional interventions. The major reasons for unplanned catheter removal were catheter dislodgement (n = 12/233, 5.2%), symptomatic CRT (n = 10/233, 4.3%), and MARSI (n = 7/233, 3.0%), accounting for 58.0% (n = 29/50, 58.0%) of the total unplanned catheter removal cases. Catheter dwelling times between patients with complications under successful interventions (130.5 ± 32.1 days) and patients with no complications (138.2 ± 46.4 days) were not significantly different (t = 1.306, p = 0.194; log-rank test = 2.610, p = 0.106).

CONCLUSIONS

PICC-related complications were pretty common in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The time distribution of PICC-related complications varied, and medical staff should develop time-specific protocols for prevention. Because more than half of the patients with PICC-related complications could be managed with conventional interventions, PICCs remain a priority for cancer patients undergoing short-term chemotherapy. The study was registered in 02/08/2019 at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR1900024890).

Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) were compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as the administration of chemotherapy regarding different clinical effects and adverse effects. Which is better is debatable. Hence, the current study was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of these two optimal vascular access strategies.

Methods

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library updated in May 2023. Studies on the differences in complication rates in patients with cancer using either PICC or PORT for chemotherapy were included. Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 22 articles were retrieved. The results suggested that PORT has a superior safety profile, with lower incidences of overall adverse effects (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.56-4.72 P=0.0004), catheter-related thrombosis (OR=2.84, 95% CI=1.97-4.11, P<0.00001), and allergic reactions (OR=6.26, 95% CI=1.86-21.09, P=0.003) than typically expected with PICC. Moreover, PICC was non-inferior to the PORT group with respect to DVT (OR=2.00, 95% CI=0.86-4.65, P=0.11) and infection (OR=1.55, 95% CI=0.75-3.22, P=0.24).

Conclusion

PORT achieved safety benefits compared with chemotherapy through PICC. Therefore, PORT is regarded as safe and effective vascular access for the administration of chemotherapy. When considering economic factors and some key elements, more high-quality research would help verify these clinical benefits.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identififier CRD42023421690.

The incidence and risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can be fatal if not treated promptly, and individual studies have reported wide variability in rates of VTE associated with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). We thus conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the overall incidence and risk of developing PICC-related VTE in hospitalized patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception until January 26, 2022. In studies with a non-comparison arm, the pooled incidence of PICC-related VTE was calculated. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to assess the risk of VTE in the studies that compared PICC to the central venous catheter (CVC). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess methodological quality.

Results

A total of 75 articles (58 without a comparison arm and 17 with), including 109292 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled incidence of symptomatic VTE was 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1–4.4) in non-comparative studies. In the subgroup meta-analysis, the incidence of VTE was highest in patients who were in a critical care setting (10.6%; 95% CI: 5.0–17.7). Meta-analysis of comparative studies revealed that PICC was associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of VTE events compared with CVC (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.83–3.37; P < 0.01). However, in subgroup analysis stratified by the study design, there was no significant difference in VTE events between the PICC and CVC in randomized controlled trials (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.77–6.74; P = 0.13).

Conclusion

Best practice standards such as PICC tip verification and VTE prophylaxis can help reduce the incidence and risk of PICC-related VTE. The risk-benefit of inserting PICC should be carefully weighed, especially in critically ill patients. Cautious interpretation of our results is important owing to substantial heterogeneity among the studies included in this study.

A six-year study of complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multi-center retrospective cohort study in China

OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), the most frequent central venous catheter, are used to provide medical treatments, although long-term PICC-related adverse outcomes are unknown in China. This study systematically investigated PICC-related complications in four Chinese hospitals.

METHODS

Between January 2014 and January 2020, we analyzed the results of 3550 patients with PICC who were referred to four Chinese hospitals. All patients underwent PICC treatment in four Chinese hospitals. Patient-reported signs and symptoms of a putative PICC-related complication or functional were studied. Long-term outcomes and hospitalization costs were also evaluated.

RESULTS

An aggregate of 3285 patients were enrolled in the analytic cohort. 58.6% were females and 41.4% were males. The most common reasons for PICC placement included oncologic malignancy and critically ill patients. The majority of PICCs had valved systems (90.7%) and were implanted in the right side (85.5%) and into the basilic vein (87.7%). At least one potential PICC-related problem or adverse effects (AEs) was reported by 67.3% of patients. Central line-associated bloodstream infection (28.1%) and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (20.7%) were the most common complications. The majority of PICCs were removed for causes other than AEs, with just 723 reported AEs accounting for 22.0% of all PICC removals. The most reasons for PICCs removal were occlusion (425, 12.9%) and exit-site infections (189, 5.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first retrospective study in our country to explore PICC-related complications. While living with a PICC, more than 67.3% of patients report signs and symptoms of at least one PICC-related problem or adverse impacts, such as difficulties with PICC use and poor effects on physical and social function. In this group, PICCs are safe and effective, although the danger of PICC-related problems should not be disregarded.

Risk Factors for Infections, Antibiotic Therapy, and Its Impact on Cancer Therapy Outcomes for Patients with Solid Tumors

Infections represent a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients. Multiple factors related to the patient, tumor, and cancer therapy can affect the risk of infection in patients with solid tumors. A thorough understanding of such factors can aid in the identification of patients with substantial risk of infection, allowing medical practitioners to tailor therapy and apply prophylactic measures to avoid serious complications. The use of novel treatment modalities, including targeted therapy and immunotherapy, brings diagnostic and therapeutic challenges into the management of infections in cancer patients. A growing body of evidence suggests that antibiotic therapy can modulate both toxicity and antitumor response induced by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and especially immunotherapy. This article provides a comprehensive review of potential risk factors for infections and therapeutic approaches for the most prevalent infections in patients with solid tumors, and discusses the potential effect of antibiotic therapy on toxicity and efficacy of cancer therapy.