Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, totally implantable venous access systems (TIVAS) are not routinely used. Compared with Hickman catheters, these devices are more expensive and complex to insert. However, it is unclear whether the higher costs may be offset by perceived greater health benefits. This pilot trial aimed to generate relevant data to inform the design of a larger definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This was a phase II prospective, randomised, open trial from two UK oncology centres. The primary end point was overall complication rate. Secondary end points included individual complication rates, time to first complication and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. An economic evaluation was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomised in a 3 : 1 ratio to receive a Hickman or a TIVAS. Overall, 54% of patients in the Hickman arm suffered one or more complications compared with 38% in the TIVAS arm (one-sided P=0.068). In the Hickman arm, 28% of the devices were removed prematurely due to a complication compared with 4% in the TIVAS arm. Quality of life based on the device-specific questionnaire was greater in the TIVAS arm for 13 of the 16 questions. The economic evaluation showed that Hickman arm was associated with greater mean cost per patient £1803 (95% CI 462, 3215), but similar quality-adjusted life years -0.01 (95% CI -0.15, 0.15) than the TIVAS arm. However, there is much uncertainty associated with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Hickman catheters, TIVAS may be the cost-effective option. A larger multicentre trial is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Exploring attitudes towards a randomised controlled trial of venous access devices ­ a nested pre-trial qualitative study.

PURPOSE: This pre-trial qualitative research study was carried out to explore patient and clinical staff attitudes to central venous access devices (CVADs). In addition, views about participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) were explored with the aim of maximising recruitment to an imminent RCT of three CVADs. METHODS: Three patient focus groups (each comprising three patients) and 23 interviews with clinical staff were conducted. Interviews and focus group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, anonymised, uploaded to the QSR NVivo10 qualitative software programme and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Analysis of focus group interviews revealed the added challenges that a CVAD poses to patients with cancer. Four key themes emerged: continuity of daily life, pain and discomfort, stigma (a mark of disgrace associated with certain conditions) and self-preservation. The findings show the impact of a CVAD on patients' ability to manage their condition. Clinical staff interviews highlighted several potential barriers to recruitment; a lack of equipoise (genuine clinical uncertainty as to which intervention is the most beneficial), concerns about the logistics of device insertion and a perceived requirement for education and training. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study raises awareness of key areas of concern to patients who need a CVAD for chemotherapy delivery. It was identified that there is a need for clearer patient information around CVADs. Additionally it allows investigators to identify barriers to recruitment in a timely manner in order to minimise the potential for conflict between the roles of carer and researcher and consequently, maximise recruitment to the RCT.

Endovascular aneurysm repair: is imaging surveillance robust, and does it influence long-term mortality?

PURPOSE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, as a result of uncertainty regarding long-term durability, an ongoing imaging surveillance program is required. The aim of the study was to assess EVAR surveillance in Scotland and its effect on all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all EVAR procedures carried out in the four main Scottish vascular units. The primary outcome measure was the implementation of post-EVAR imaging surveillance across Scotland. Patients were identified locally and then categorized as having complete, incomplete, or no surveillance. Secondary outcome measures were all-cause mortality and aneurysm-related mortality. Cause of death was obtained from death certificates. RESULTS: Data were available for 569 patients from the years 2001 to 2012. All centers had data for a minimum of 5 contiguous years. Surveillance ranged from 1.66 to 4.55 years (median 3.03 years). Overall, 53 % had complete imaging surveillance, 43 % incomplete, and 4 % none. For the whole cohort, all-cause 5-year mortality was 33.5 % (95 % confidence interval 28.0-38.6) and aneurysm-related mortality was 4.5 % (.8-7.3). All-cause mortality in patients with complete, incomplete, and no imaging was 49.9 % (39.2-58.6), 19.1 % (12.6-25.2), and 47.2 % (17.7-66.2), respectively. Aneurysm-related mortality was 3.7 % (1.8-7.4), 4.4 % (2.2-8.9), and 9.5 % (2.5-33.0), respectively. All-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with complete compared to incomplete imaging surveillance (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in aneurysm-related mortality (p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Only half of EVAR patients underwent complete long-term imaging surveillance. However, incomplete imaging could not be linked to any increase in mortality. Further work is required to establish the role and deliverability of EVAR imaging surveillance.

Randomized comparison of uterine artery embolization (UAE) with surgical treatment in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids (REST trial): subanalysis of 5-year MRI findings.

PURPOSE: To report 5-year contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging findings of the REST trial recruits who underwent either uterine artery embolization (UAE) or myomectomy. METHODS: A total of 157 patients were randomized to UAE or surgery (hysterectomy or myomectomy). Ninety-nine patients who had UAE and eight patients who had myomectomy were analyzed. MRI scans at baseline, 6 months, and 5 years were independently interpreted by two radiologists. Dominant fibroid diameter, uterine volume, total fibroid infarction (complete 100 %, almost complete 90-99 %, partial <90 %), and new fibroid formation were the main parameters assessed and related to the need for reintervention. RESULTS: In the UAE group, mean ± standard deviation uterine volume was 670 ± 503, 422 ± 353, and 292 ± 287 mL at baseline, 6 months, and 5 years, respectively. Mean dominant fibroid diameter was 7.6 ± 3.0, 5.8 ± 2.9, and 5 ± 2.9 cm at baseline, 6 months, and 5 years. Fibroid infarction at 6 months was complete in 35 % of women, almost complete in 29 %, and partial in 36 %. Need for reintervention was 19, 10, and 33 % in these groups, respectively (p = 0.123). No myomectomy cases had further intervention. At 5 years, the prevalence of new fibroid was 60 % in the myomectomy group and 7 % in the UAE group (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: There is a further significant reduction in both uterine volume and dominant fibroid diameter between 6 months and 5 years after UAE. Complete fibroid infarction does not translate into total freedom from a subsequent reintervention. New fibroid formation is significantly higher after myomectomy.