首页> 外文期刊>Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer >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
【24h】

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

机译:对于非血液系统恶性肿瘤接受化疗的患者,通过并发症和费用比较外周插入式中心静脉导管(PICC)与皮下植入的腔室导管

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:目的:越来越多地使用留置中心静脉导管(CVC)来进行静脉化疗。我们旨在比较非血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗中两种常用的CVC(外围插入的中心静脉导管(PICC)和端口)的安全性和成本。方法:70名患者被随机分配接受PICC或端口。主要终点是发生重大并发症,需要切除CVC,次要终点包括发生任何并发症。结果:与PICC管线相比,端口设备的并发症更少(危险比0.25,CI,0.09-0.86,P = 0.038)。与PICC组相比,左臂组的主要并发症发生率较低(分别为0.047和0.193个主要并发症/ 100个导管天,P = 0.034),分别有6%和20%的患者经历了主要并发症。与端口组相比,PICC组中最常见的并发症是血栓形成(25%vs. 0%,P = 0.013)。两组之间的生活质量和成本估算没有显着差异。结论:与非血液系统恶性肿瘤接受静脉化疗的患者相比,与PICC线相比,端口装置与并发症风险较低,成本无差异。

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