Babu K Govind, Suresh Babu M C, Lokanatha D, Bhat Gita R
Department of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016 Oct-Dec;37(4):232-238. doi: 10.4103/0971-5851.195732.
Prolonged treatment, frequent administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics and blood products in cancer patients requires long term venous access. Central venous catheters (CVC) inserted into the subclavian vein or internal jugular vein, peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) and chemoport (CP) are the commonly used central venous access devices (CVAD).
This study was envisaged to review our experience of CVADs over a one year period and analyze the outcome with regard to catheter life, reasons for removal, complications, patient satisfaction and cost comparison between the CVAD types in the Indian setting.
This was a prospective, observational study carried out in a tertiary care cancer institute.
180 CVADs placed in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors from January 2014 to December 2014 were included.
Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann Whitney U test. <0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
180 CVADs were placed in 160 patients. The median catheter indwelling period was 76 days (16 days to 313 days) for CVC, 59 days (20days - 313 days) for PICC and 137 days (70 days - 258 days) for CP. 66 out of 160 patients developed complications (41.2%). 108 complication events were noted in 66 patients. There were 40 episodes of CRBSI. Out of the 68 mechanical complications, 37 were encountered during insertion of the CVAD and 31 were during the catheter indwelling period. Out of 160 patients, 138 (86.25%) were satisfied with the CVAD. The cost incurred for CVC/PICC (INR 4,480) was lower than that for CP (INR 24,150) and it was statistically significant ( < 0.0001). Our patients were highly satisfied with the CVAD.
Use of CVC and PICC is a safe, reliable and cost saving way of administration of chemotherapy in developing countries. The incidence of complications and catheter loss was acceptable. Our patients were highly satisfied with the CVAD.
癌症患者需要长期静脉通路来进行延长治疗、频繁给予化疗药物、抗生素和血液制品。插入锁骨下静脉或颈内静脉的中心静脉导管(CVC)、外周静脉穿刺中心静脉导管(PICC)和化疗端口(CP)是常用的中心静脉通路装置(CVAD)。
本研究旨在回顾我们在一年时间内使用CVAD的经验,并分析导管使用寿命、拔除原因、并发症、患者满意度以及印度背景下不同类型CVAD之间的成本比较等结果。
这是一项在三级癌症护理机构进行的前瞻性观察研究。
纳入2014年1月至2014年12月期间为血液系统恶性肿瘤和实体瘤患者放置的180根CVAD。
采用描述性统计、曼-惠特尼U检验对数据进行分析。P<0.05被视为具有统计学意义。
160例患者共放置了180根CVAD。CVC的中位导管留置时间为76天(16天至313天),PICC为59天(20天至313天),CP为137天(70天至258天)。160例患者中有66例(41.2%)出现并发症。66例患者共发生108次并发症事件。有40例CRBSI(导管相关血流感染)。在68例机械性并发症中,37例发生在CVAD插入过程中;31例发生在导管留置期间。160例患者中,138例(86.25%)对CVAD满意。CVC/PICC的成本(4480印度卢比)低于CP(24150印度卢比),且具有统计学意义(P<0.0001)。我们的患者对CVAD高度满意。
在发展中国家,使用CVC和PICC是一种安全、可靠且节省成本的化疗给药方式。并发症和导管丢失的发生率是可以接受的。我们的患者对CVAD高度满意。