Breast Center of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No. 169, Tianshan Street, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
World J Surg. 2019 Sep;43(9):2245-2249. doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05022-x.
Our aim was to compare the applications of totally implanted vascular access devices (TIVAD) and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in breast cancer patients.
We analyzed 4080 cases of TIVAD and 1433 cases of PICC at the Breast Center of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University. The success rate, operation time, and procedures of catheterization, as well as the catheterization-related complications, catheter indwelling-related complications, and the utilization conditions were compared between these two methods.
Our results showed that the success rate of catheterization was relatively higher in PICC group (99.5%) than the TIVAD group (99.0%)(χ = 3.521, P = 0.038), and the operation time and the rate of catheterization-related complications were lower in PICC (18.65 ± 4.7603 min, 0.91%) compared to TIVAD (29.55 ± 4.0843 min, 1.59%)(t = 38.000, P < 0.01, χ = 3.578, P = 0.035). However, the rate of catheter indwelling-related complications was lower in TIVAD group (2.47%) than the PICC group (3.62%)(χ = 5.227, P = 0.016), and the catheter care was also better in TIVAD.
Based on these analyses, we recommended TIVAD for the patients who need long-term and high-dose chemotherapy and PICC for the patients who need short chemotherapy cycle and live close to the hospital.
本研究旨在比较完全植入式血管通路装置（TIVAD）和经外周静脉穿刺中心静脉置管（PICC）在乳腺癌患者中的应用。
我们分析了河北医科大学第四医院乳腺中心的 4080 例 TIVAD 和 1433 例 PICC。比较了两种方法的置管成功率、操作时间和置管过程，以及置管相关并发症、导管留置相关并发症和利用情况。
我们的结果显示，PICC 组的置管成功率（99.5%）相对高于 TIVAD 组（99.0%）（χ = 3.521，P = 0.038），PICC 组的操作时间和置管相关并发症发生率（18.65 ± 4.7603 min，0.91%）低于 TIVAD 组（29.55 ± 4.0843 min，1.59%）（t = 38.000，P < 0.01，χ = 3.578，P = 0.035）。然而，TIVAD 组的导管留置相关并发症发生率（2.47%）低于 PICC 组（3.62%）（χ = 5.227，P = 0.016），TIVAD 组的导管护理也更好。
基于这些分析，我们建议对需要长期、大剂量化疗的患者使用 TIVAD，对需要短化疗周期且靠近医院的患者使用 PICC。
