首页> 外文期刊>Patient Preference and Adherence >Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy
【24h】

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

机译:恶性肿瘤化疗患者三种类型的中心静脉导管的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs). Methods: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60?PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal. Results: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12?months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12?months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups. Conclusion: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.
机译:背景:中心静脉导管(CVC)代替外周静脉导管已成为化疗的有效途径。关于化学疗法使用不同类型的CVC的选择和作用的研究有限。这项研究的目的是比较三种常用的化学疗法CVC的并发症,成本,患者的生活质量和满意度,例如植入的静脉端口,外围插入的中央导管(PICC)和外部非隧道式中央静脉导管导管(NTC)。方法:从2014年3月至2016年12月进行了一项双中心前瞻性队列研究,记录,调查和分析了导管插入情况,并发症,导管维护,费用以及患者的生活质量和满意度。其中包括45个端口,60个PICC和40个NTC。随访所有CVC,直至拔除导管。结果:端口和PICC之间的导管插入成功率没有统计学差异。与端口相比,NTC一次穿刺的成功率要低。与PICC和NTC相比,港口的并发症更少。端口,PICC和NTC的并发症发生率分别为2.2%,40%和27.5%。如果化学疗法的时间少于12个月,则NTC的成本最低,并且移植的费用远高于PICC和NTC。当持续时间超过12个月时,港口成本与人保财险成本没有差异。移植组的生活质量和患者满意度显着高于其他两组。结论:尽管导管插入术花费更多,并且需要专业的医护人员和严格的操作条件,但与PICC和NTC相比,导管的并发症更少,生活质量和患者满意度更高。因此,在不考虑经济因素的情况下,我们建议将端口作为癌症患者尤其是需要长期化疗过程的癌症患者的安全有效的化疗途径。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号