Search

Aim: CVCs are often used to deliver chemotherapy to patients with cancer. The aim of our study was to compare safety of the CVCs (PICC and PORT) in patients with non-hematological malignancies. Method(s): Eligible patients from three Australian hospitals were prospectively randomised (1:1) and allocated to either a Groshong PICC or a single chamber PORT device. Data was collected every 3 wks from CVC insertion up to treatment completion, removal of device or disease progression, whichever occurred earlier. Result(s): 70 patients (36 males and 34 females) were randomised at 3 centres between Dec 2004- Dec 2009 to PICC (36/70) or PORT (34/70). One patient from each arm withdrew consent prior to CVC insertion. Mean age was comparable in both arms (62 yrs in PICC v 61 yrs in PORT). Prolonged chemotherapy infusion was the commonest indication for CVC insertion (70% in PICC and 74% in PORT). 60% of patients had metastatic disease and colorectal cancer was the leading diagnosis overall (46 out of 70 patients). There were no procedure related complications. Median time to insertion (time from randomisation to CVC insertion) was 7 and 12 days for PICC and PORT respectively. Median dwell time was slightly longer for PORT (160 days) than PICC (112 days). Amongst evaluable patients (68/70), there were more complications observed in patients with PICC lines than with PORTs (47% v 12%; p = 0.001). A higher number of PICC lines were removed prematurely before treatment completion than PORTs (26% v 3%). Four patients needed PICC removal and anticoagulation due to catheter related thrombosis whereas none in PORT arm developed thrombosis. Catheter related infection requiring systemic antibiotics occurred in 1 patient in each group. Conclusion(s): PORT catheters are associated with significantly lower complication rate as compared to PICC in patients with non-haematological cancers receiving chemotherapy.

Aim: CVCs are often used to deliver chemotherapy to patients with cancer. The aim of our study was to compare safety of the CVCs (PICC and PORT) in patients with non-hematological malignancies. Method(s): Eligible patients from three Australian hospitals were prospectively randomised (1:1) and allocated to either a Groshong PICC or a single chamber PORT device. Data was collected every 3 wks from CVC insertion up to treatment completion, removal of device or disease progression, whichever occurred earlier. Result(s): 70 patients (36 males and 34 females) were randomised at 3 centres between Dec 2004- Dec 2009 to PICC (36/70) or PORT (34/70). One patient from each arm withdrew consent prior to CVC insertion. Mean age was comparable in both arms (62 yrs in PICC v 61 yrs in PORT). Prolonged chemotherapy infusion was the commonest indication for CVC insertion (70% in PICC and 74% in PORT). 60% of patients had metastatic disease and colorectal cancer was the leading diagnosis overall (46 out of 70 patients). There were no procedure related complications. Median time to insertion (time from randomisation to CVC insertion) was 7 and 12 days for PICC and PORT respectively. Median dwell time was slightly longer for PORT (160 days) than PICC (112 days). Amongst evaluable patients (68/70), there were more complications observed in patients with PICC lines than with PORTs (47% v 12%; p = 0.001). A higher number of PICC lines were removed prematurely before treatment completion than PORTs (26% v 3%). Four patients needed PICC removal and anticoagulation due to catheter related thrombosis whereas none in PORT arm developed thrombosis. Catheter related infection requiring systemic antibiotics occurred in 1 patient in each group. Conclusion(s): PORT catheters are associated with significantly lower complication rate as compared to PICC in patients with non-haematological cancers receiving chemotherapy.