Comparing results of midline catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter in cancer patients under chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), and peripherally inserted midlines (MC) represent a possible less invasive alternative option to totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVAD) in cancer patients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of PICC, and MC devices in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

A prospective non-concurrent observational study was conducted at the IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova (Italy) on 559 cancer patients candidate to chemotherapy bearing PICC, and MC during the period 2019-2022. The primary endpoint was the comparative analysis for failure of the different types of peripheral insertion accesses requiring removal. Secondary outcome measures were age at diagnosis, gender, period of diagnosis, cancer site and type of chemotherapy. The negative binomial regression analysis was applied to estimate catheter removal rate ratios (RR), along with 95% confidence limits (95% CL), in each category of the risk factors.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 2.6 months (IQR = 1.4-4.6; min-max = 0.03-12.7), and at the end of the study period, a total of 45 catheter failures were detected. A risk reduction of approximately 75% (RR = 0.24; 95% CL = 0.11-0.51) was emphasized for patients with PICC when compared with those with MLC. Type of chemotherapy and cancer site appeared to be important predictive factors for catheter removal risk.

CONCLUSIONS

For cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy by a non TIVAD, PICC must be preferred to MC because of higher safety and efficacy.