Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2016; 37(04): 232-238
DOI: 10.4103/0971-5851.195732
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Outcomes, cost comparison, and patient satisfaction during long-term central venous access in cancer patients: Experience from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute in South India

K Govind Babu
Department of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
M C Suresh Babu
Department of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
D Lokanatha
Department of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
,
Gita R Bhat
Department of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction: 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). Aim: 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. Settings and Design: This was a prospective, observational study carried out in a tertiary care cancer institute. Materials and Methods: 180 CVADs placed in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors from January 2014 to December 2014 were included. Statistical Analysis Used: Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, Mann Whitney U test. P <0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results: 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 (P < 0.0001). Our patients were highly satisfied with the CVAD. Conclusion: 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.

Keywords

Central venous catheters - chemoport - complications - cost comparison - patient satisfaction - peripherally inserted central venous catheter


Publication History

Article published online:
12 July 2021

© 2016. Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Cameron GS. Central venous catheters for children with malignant disease: Surgical issues. J Pediatr Surg 1987;22:702-4.
  • 2 Iannacci L, Piomelli S. Supportive care for children with cancer. Guidelines of the Childrens Cancer Study Group. Use of venous access lines. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1984;6:277-81.
  • 3 Jain SA, Shukla SN, Talati SS, Parikh SK, Bhatt SJ, Maka V. A retrospective study of central venous catheters GCRI experience. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2013;34:238-41.
  • 4 Medscape.org. Roe EJ. Central Venous Access via Subclavian Approach to the Subclavian Vein. Available from: http://www.emedicine.medscape.com/article/80336-overview. [Last accessed on 2015 Apr 24].
  • 5 Gowardman JR, Robertson IK, Parkes S, Rickard CM. Influence of insertion site on central venous catheter colonization and bloodstream infection rates. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:1038-45.
  • 6 Norwood S, Wilkins HE 3rd, Vallina VL, Fernandez LG, McLarty JW. The safety of prolonging the use of central venous catheters: A prospective analysis of the effects of using antiseptic-bonded catheters with daily site care. Crit Care Med 2000;28:1376-82.
  • 7 Schiffer CA, Mangu PB, Wade JC, Camp-Sorrell D, Cope DG, El-Rayes BF, et al. Central venous catheter care for the patient with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1357-70.
  • 8 Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R, Strickland AH, Pellegrini L, Slavotinek J, et al. Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:121-8.
  • 9 Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Kim SH, Lee SC, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: Prospective observational study. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25:1748-53.
  • 10 Kumar AH, Srinivasan NM, Thakkar JM, Mathew S. A prospective observational study of the outcome of central venous catheterization in 100 patients. Anesth Essays Res 2013;7:71-5.
  • 11 Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM. Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1735-8.
  • 12 Nirni SS. Study of various types of central venous catheters with respect to their complications. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2002;23:21-4.
  • 13 Bolton DT. Extravasation associated with a multilumen central catheter. Anaesthesia 1997;52:1119.
  • 14 Filippou DK, Tsikkinis C, Filippou GK, Nissiotis A, Rizos S. Rupture of totally implantable central venous access devices (Intraports) in patients with cancer: Report of four cases. World J Surg Oncol 2004;2:36.
  • 15 Kameyama H, Yamazaki T, Maeda C, Akamatsu M, Yokoyama N, Kuwabara S, et al. Central venous access port devices (CVAPD) – Related complications in colorectal cancer patients. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2010;37:453-5.
  • 16 Oz K, Demirhan R, Onan B, Sancakli I. Pulmonary artery pseudoaneurysm after a vascular access port catheter implantation. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:295-7.
  • 17 Memis A, Oran I, Ozener V. Percutaneous retrieval of broken port catheter entrapped in the right atrium. Turk J Med Sci 1999;29:81-4.
  • 18 Gorelick MH, Owen WC, Seibel NL, Reaman GH. Lack of association between neutropenia and the incidence of bacteremia associated with indwelling central venous catheters in febrile pediatric cancer patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991;10:506-10.
  • 19 Levy I, Bendet M, Samra Z, Shalit I, Katz J. Infectious complications of peripherally inserted central venous catheters in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2010;29:426-9.