Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first‐line treatment for patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma

Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are commonly used for the delivery of immunochemotherapy. We compared the safety of the two types of devices in a homogeneous and monocentric population of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who were treated with first‐line immunochemotherapy by evaluating the numbers of catheter‐related venous thromboses (VTs) and infections that occurred in the six months after implantation according to the type of device.

[1]  J. Childs,et al.  Catheter to vein ratio and risk of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)-associated thrombosis according to diagnostic group: a retrospective cohort study , 2021, BMJ Open.

[2]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Using propensity scores to estimate effects of treatment initiation decisions: State of the science , 2020, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  F. Clatot,et al.  Randomised phase II trial evaluating the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer. , 2020, European journal of cancer.

[4]  L. Bernfort,et al.  Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer—A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial , 2019, Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica.

[5]  Yalou Pu,et al.  Complications and Costs of Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters Compared With Implantable Port Catheters for Cancer Patients , 2019, Cancer nursing.

[6]  H. Hanberger,et al.  Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. , 2019, British journal of anaesthesia.

[7]  V. Vukovic,et al.  Venous thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients: Actual relationships between epidemiology, mechanisms, clinical profile and treatment. , 2017, Blood reviews.

[8]  J. Rupa-Matysek,et al.  Prediction of venous thromboembolism in newly diagnosed patients treated for lymphoid malignancies: validation of the Khorana Risk Score , 2017, Medical Oncology.

[9]  D. Consonni,et al.  Clinical management of peripherally inserted central catheters compared to conventional central venous catheters in patients with hematological malignancies: A large multicenter study of the REL GROUP (Rete Ematologica Lombarda ‐ Lombardy Hematologic Network, Italy) , 2017, American journal of hematology.

[10]  V. Chopra,et al.  The Michigan Risk Score to predict peripherally inserted central catheter‐associated thrombosis , 2017, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[11]  P. Djurdjevic,et al.  Development and validation of multivariable predictive model for thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients. , 2016, American journal of hematology.

[12]  Wen-Qi Jiang,et al.  High risk of deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in lymphoma , 2016, Oncotarget.

[13]  V. Chopra,et al.  The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  H. Chew,et al.  Lymphoma and venous thromboembolism: influence on mortality. , 2014, Thrombosis research.

[15]  E. Johansson,et al.  Advantages and disadvantages of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) compared to other central venous lines: A systematic review of the literature , 2013, Acta oncologica.

[16]  M. Gorman,et al.  Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  B. Koczwara,et al.  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 , 2013, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[18]  S. Lindgren,et al.  Complications associated with peripheral or central routes for central venous cannulation , 2012, Anaesthesia.

[19]  P. Austin.  An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[20]  A. Ng,et al.  Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. , 2007, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[21]  A. Molinari,et al.  Incidence of catheter‐related infections within 30 days from insertion of Hickman–Broviac catheters , 2007, Pediatric blood & cancer.

[22]  R. Fisher,et al.  Venous thromboembolism in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma , 2006, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[23]  M. Hsairi,et al.  Randomized trial of prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infection by continuous infusion of low-dose unfractionated heparin in patients with hematologic and oncologic disease. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  T. Barbui,et al.  Incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with haematological malignancies with central venous catheters: a prospective multicentre study , 2005, British journal of haematology.

[25]  M. Hsairi,et al.  Difference in time to positivity is useful for the diagnosis of catheter-related bloodstream infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients , 2005, Bone Marrow Transplantation.

[26]  E. Bouza,et al.  Catheter-Related Infections: Diagnosis and Intravascular Treatment , 2001, Journal of chemotherapy.