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

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2025-01-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7150/jca.103631
Juan Qiu, Shanshan Huang, Pei Wen, Yingxin Jiang, Zan Luo, Wenxiong Zhang, Jianyun Wen
{"title":"Implantable Port Catheters versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters for Cancer Patients Requiring Chemotherapy: An RCT-Based Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Juan Qiu, Shanshan Huang, Pei Wen, Yingxin Jiang, Zan Luo, Wenxiong Zhang, Jianyun Wen","doi":"10.7150/jca.103631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Implantable port catheters (IPCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used venous access methods for chemotherapy in cancer patients. However, the question of which is superior remains controversial. This meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematically compares the safety, cost, and impact on quality of life between these two methods. <b>Methods:</b> Eligible RCTs comparing IPC and PICC were identified through searches in seven databases. Complications were the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included cost, impact on chemotherapy, and quality of life assessments. <b>Results:</b> Six studies based on five RCTs, including a total of 1,127 patients, were analyzed. Patient data indicated that the PICC group experienced a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, and local reactions. Conversely, the IPC group had a higher incidence of pocket infection/exit-site infection without septicemia and pain. When considering catheter days, the PICC group again showed a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, edema, and local reactions. Complication-free survival was better in the IPC group. Although the impact on chemotherapy tended to favor the IPC group, this difference was not statistically significant. The total cost was higher in the IPC group, while the cost per catheter day was similar between the two groups. Quality of life assessments (using EORTC QLQ-C30) revealed similar global health status between the two groups during the post-implantation, mid-treatment, and end-treatment periods. However, the IPC group experienced a smaller decline in global health status post-implantation compared to the PICC group. <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared to PICC, IPC appears to be a safer and more comfortable intravenous catheterization option for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15183,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer","volume":"16 4","pages":"1127-1136"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11786043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.103631","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implantable port catheters (IPCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are commonly used venous access methods for chemotherapy in cancer patients. However, the question of which is superior remains controversial. This meta-analysis, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematically compares the safety, cost, and impact on quality of life between these two methods. Methods: Eligible RCTs comparing IPC and PICC were identified through searches in seven databases. Complications were the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included cost, impact on chemotherapy, and quality of life assessments. Results: Six studies based on five RCTs, including a total of 1,127 patients, were analyzed. Patient data indicated that the PICC group experienced a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, and local reactions. Conversely, the IPC group had a higher incidence of pocket infection/exit-site infection without septicemia and pain. When considering catheter days, the PICC group again showed a higher incidence of total complications, thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, implantation failure, unplanned catheter removal, edema, and local reactions. Complication-free survival was better in the IPC group. Although the impact on chemotherapy tended to favor the IPC group, this difference was not statistically significant. The total cost was higher in the IPC group, while the cost per catheter day was similar between the two groups. Quality of life assessments (using EORTC QLQ-C30) revealed similar global health status between the two groups during the post-implantation, mid-treatment, and end-treatment periods. However, the IPC group experienced a smaller decline in global health status post-implantation compared to the PICC group. Conclusions: Compared to PICC, IPC appears to be a safer and more comfortable intravenous catheterization option for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
植入式端口导管与外周插入中心导管对需要化疗的癌症患者:一项基于随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
背景:植入式端口导管(IPCs)和外周中心导管(PICCs)是癌症患者化疗常用的静脉通路。然而,孰优孰劣的问题仍然存在争议。本荟萃分析基于随机对照试验(rct),系统比较了这两种方法的安全性、成本和对生活质量的影响。方法:在7个数据库中检索比较IPC和PICC的符合条件的rct。并发症是主要终点,次要终点包括成本、对化疗的影响和生活质量评估。结果:我们分析了基于5项随机对照试验的6项研究,共1127例患者。患者资料显示,PICC组总并发症、血栓形成、深静脉血栓形成、植入失败、计划外拔管和局部反应的发生率较高。相反,IPC组有较高的口袋感染/出口部位感染发生率,无败血症和疼痛。当考虑置管天数时,PICC组再次显示出更高的总并发症发生率、血栓形成、深静脉血栓形成、植入失败、计划外拔管、水肿和局部反应。IPC组无并发症生存率更高。虽然对化疗的影响倾向于IPC组,但这种差异没有统计学意义。IPC组总费用较高,而两组每日导管费用相似。生活质量评估(使用EORTC QLQ-C30)显示两组在植入后、治疗中期和治疗结束期间的整体健康状况相似。然而,与PICC组相比,IPC组在植入后的整体健康状况下降幅度较小。结论:与PICC相比,IPC似乎是接受化疗的癌症患者更安全、更舒适的静脉置管选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer
Journal of Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
333
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal with broad scope covering all areas of cancer research, especially novel concepts, new methods, new regimens, new therapeutic agents, and alternative approaches for early detection and intervention of cancer. The Journal is supported by an international editorial board consisting of a distinguished team of cancer researchers. Journal of Cancer aims at rapid publication of high quality results in cancer research while maintaining rigorous peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
Association Between Long-term Use of H2 Receptor Antagonists and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study in Taiwan. In-depth Biological Monitoring to Estimate Effects of Red or Processed Meat on Colorectal Cancer. Complement and Coagulation Cascades Pathway was Inactivated in HIV-Associated Colorectal Cancer: Results from a Proteomics Study. Dysregulation of SRSF11 in Cancer: Mechanistic Insights and Biomarker Potential for Diagnosis and Therapy. Comparative Blood-Based Transcriptomic Profiles of Prostate Cancer Patients from South Africa and the USA: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1