scholarly journals The incidence and risk factors of peripherally inserted central catheter-related infection among cancer patients

2015 ◽  
pp. 863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yufang Gao ◽  
Yuxiu Liu ◽  
Xiaoyan Ma ◽  
Lili Wei ◽  
Weifen Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Catheter Related Infection

Peripherally inserted central catheter-related complications in cancer patients: a prospective study of over 50,000 catheter days

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junren Kang ◽  
Wei Chen ◽  
Wenyan Sun ◽  
Ruibin Ge ◽  
Hailong Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Significant Risk Factor ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Multicenter Cohort Study ◽  
Related Factors

Purpose To evaluate incidence and risk factors of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-related complications in cancer patients. Methods A prospective, multicenter, cohort study of cancer patients with PICC insertion was performed from February 1, 2013 to April 24, 2014. All patients were monitored in clinic until PICCs were removed. The primary endpoint was PICC removal due to complications. Patient-, catheter- and insertion-related factors were analyzed in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify significant independent risk factors for PICC-related complications. Results There were 477 cancer patients included, for a total of 50,841 catheter-days. Eighty-one patients (17.0%) developed PICC-related complications, with an incidence of 1.59 per 1000 catheter days. Thirty-six (7.5%) PICCs were removed because of complications. The most common complications were skin allergy (4.6%), catheter occlusion (3.4%) and accidental withdrawal (2.3%). Nine (1.9%) patients developed symptomatic upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) and central line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) was shown in six (1.3%) PICCs with an infection rate 0.12 per 1000 catheter days. In multivariable analysis, body mass index (BMI) >25 (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-3.47, p = 0.004) was shown to be a significant risk factor for PICC complications. Conclusions Cancer patients with BMI greater than 25 were more likely to have PICC complications.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Quality of Life of Patients with Breast or Colon Cancer with an Arm Vein Port (TIVAD) Versus a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 1495-1506
Author(s):  
Brent Burbridge ◽  
Hyun Lim ◽  
Lynn Dwernychuk ◽  
Ha Le ◽  
Tehmina Asif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Venous Access ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Access Device ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Venous Access Device

Introduction: Venous access is a crucial element in chemotherapy delivery. It remains unclear whether cancer patients prefer a port to a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). Our study aimed to assess cancer patients’ satisfaction with their venous access device and to compare the quality of life (QoL) of subjects with a PICC to those with a port. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, EORTC QLQ-C30, and a locally developed quality of life survey (QLAVD), designed to assess satisfaction with venous access devices, were administered to breast or colorectal cancer patients over a one-year period following the device insertion. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes on mean scores at different time points. Results: A total of 101 patients were recruited over a three-year period, (PICC group, n = 50; port group, n = 51). Survey response rates for months one and three were 72% and 48%, respectively. Overall, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in relation to EORTC QOL. At three months, the mean pain scores were 3.5 ± 2.3 for the port and 1.3 ± 0.75 for PICC (<0.001). The mean score for a negative effect of the venous access device on psychosocial well-being was 6.0 ± 4.1 for PICC and 3.0 ± 2.7 for the port (p = 0.005). Complications related to PICCs occurred in 38% patients versus 41% with a port (p > 0.24). Conclusions: Although subjects with a port experienced more pain during the device insertion or access for chemotherapy, it had a smaller negative impact on psychosocial scores than the PICC. No significant differences in complications rates were observed between the two devices.

Screening for novel risk factors related to peripherally inserted central catheter-associated complications

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 481-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Moran ◽  
Colleen Y. Colbert ◽  
Juhee Song ◽  
Jane Mathews ◽  
Alejandro C. Arroliga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Novel Risk Factors

scholarly journals The development of a risk score for unplanned removal of peripherally inserted central catheter in newborns

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscila Costa ◽  
Amélia Fumiko Kimura ◽  
Debra Huffman Brandon ◽  
Eny Dorea Paiva ◽  
Patricia Ponce de Camargo
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Bivariate Analysis ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Single Lumen ◽  
Double Lumen Catheter ◽  
Lumen Catheter

OBJECTIVE: to develop a risk score for unplanned removal of peripherally inserted central catheter in newborns.METHOD: prospective cohort study conducted in a neonatal intensive care unit with newborn babies who underwent 524 catheter insertions. The clinical characteristics of the newborn, catheter insertion and intravenous therapy were tested as risk factors for the unplanned removal of catheters using bivariate analysis. The risk score was developed using logistic regression. Accuracy was internally validated based on the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve.RESULTS: the risk score was made up of the following risk factors: transient metabolic disorders; previous insertion of catheter; use of a polyurethane double-lumen catheter; infusion of multiple intravenous solutions through a single-lumen catheter; and tip in a noncentral position. Newborns were classified into three categories of risk of unplanned removal: low (0 to 3 points), moderate (4 to 8 points), and high (≥ 9 points). Accuracy was 0.76.CONCLUSION: the adoption of evidence-based preventative strategies based on the classification and risk factors faced by the newborn is recommended to minimize the occurrence of unplanned removals.

A case of unexpected peripherally inserted central catheter removal from a colorectal cancer patient with cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and contact dermatitis at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site: Should we recommend the patient to choose subcutaneous port preferentially?

2020 ◽  
pp. 112972982091088
Author(s):  
Hui Yang ◽  
Yuanyi Rui ◽  
Guorong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Contact Dermatitis ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Insertion Site ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter ◽  
Central Catheter ◽  
Catheter Insertion Site ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients

Introduction: Obtaining central venous access is one of the most commonly performed procedures in cancer patients. However, there are very limited data to guide clinicians when selecting a device for metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received cetuximab. Case description: A 54-year-old male patient with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI used peripherally inserted central catheter as intravenous pathway. After eight cycles, the patient suffered cetuximab-induced grade 2 skin toxicity and grade 3 contact dermatitis at the peripherally inserted central catheter insertion site. Finally, he removed the peripherally inserted central catheter and accepted subcutaneous port instead for 2 years without implantation cutaneous complication. Conclusions: We suggest that metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab should be recommended to choose subcutaneous port preferentially to avoid potential risk of unexpected peripherally inserted central catheter removal due to cetuximab-induced skin toxicity or contact dermatitis. Further clinical practices and researches are needed for more profound evidences for better practical suggestions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document