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

Clicks: 291
ID: 145542
2017
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #22 of 79 articles by views in the journal of craniofacial surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Shirong Fang,1 Jinhong Yang,2 Lei Song,3 Yan Jiang,1 Yuxiu Liu4 1Department of Anesthesiology, 2Department of Oncology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 3Intensive Care Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 4Nursing College, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, People’s Republic of China 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. Keywords: central venous catheter, port, peripherally inserted central catheter, external non-tunneled catheter, complication, cost, cancer patient 
Reference Key
s2017patientcomparison Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Fang S;Yang J;Song L;Jiang Y;Liu Y
Journal the journal of craniofacial surgery
Year 2017
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-three-types-of-central-venous-catheters-in-patients-with-peer-reviewed-article-PPA
Keywords
complication cost central venous catheter port peripherally inserted central catheter

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.