RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort. METHODS: We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation. RESULTS: Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device. CONCLUSIONS: In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Short peripheral catheters (SPCs) are used to provide intravenous therapies in hospitalized patients. Recently, the category of SPC has become more complex, with the introduction in clinical practice of "integrated" SPCs (ISPCs), renewed regarding the material (polyurethane rather than polytetrafluoroethylene) and design (large wing; pre-assembled extension; preassembled needle-free connector (NFC)). METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies in hospitalized patients, analyzing the risk of overall catheter failure as well as the risk of each type of complication (occlusion, infiltration, thrombophlebitis, and dislodgement) for ISPCs compared to non-integrated SPCs. These systematic review and meta-analysis were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022322970). DATA SOURCES: We searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials register from April to November 2022. RESULTS: INCLUDED STUDIES: The research identified 1260 articles. After the abstract review, 13 studies were included for full manuscript review and, after that, six papers (4727 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. DESCRIPTION OF THE EFFECT: We found a significantly reduced risk of catheter failure (pooling all complications) for ISPCs compared to SPCs (p = 0.002 RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.63-0.9). A significant reduction in the risks of occlusion (p = 0.007 RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.56-0.92) was observed. As regards the risk of infiltration, thrombophlebitis, and dislodgement, the analysis showed a trend in favor of ISPCs, though not statistically significant (respectively p = 0.2 RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.64-1.1; p = 0.25 RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07; p = 0.06 RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: ISPCs significantly reduce the risks of catheter failure (overall complications) and occlusion. More RCTs are needed to understand if the preassembled ISPC is better than the composted closed system (non-integrated SPC + extension line + NFC).
RESUMEN
Central venous access devices are essential for the management of critically ill patients, but they are potentially associated with many complications, which may occur during or after insertion. Many evidence-based documents-consensus and guidelines-suggest practical recommendations for reducing catheter-related complications, but they have some limitations. Some documents are not focused on critically ill patients; other documents address only some special strategies, such as the use of ultrasound; other documents are biased by obsolete concepts, inappropriate terminology, and lack of considerations for new technologies and new methods. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to offer an updated compendium of the main strategies-old and new-that should be adopted for minimizing catheter-related complications in the adult critically ill patient. The project has been planned as a consensus, rather than a guideline, since many issues in this field are relatively recent, and few high-quality randomized clinical studies are currently available, particularly in the area of indications and choice of the device. Panelists were chosen between the Italian vascular access experts who had published papers on peer-reviewed journals about this topic in the last few years. The consensus process was carried out according to the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a modification of the Delphi method, that is, a structured process for collecting knowledge from groups of experts through a series of questionnaires. The final document has been structured as statements which answer to four major sets of questions regarding central venous access in the critically ill: (1) before insertion (seven questions), (2) during insertion (eight questions), (3) after insertion (three questions), and (4) at removal (three questions).