Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 11

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

Authors Fang S, Yang J, Song L, Jiang Y, Liu Y

Received 25 May 2017

Accepted for publication 16 June 2017

Published 12 July 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 1197—1204


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu

Shirong Fang,1 Jinhong Yang,2 Lei Song,3 Yan Jiang,1 Yuxiu Liu4

1Department of Anesthesiology, 2Department of Oncology, Weifang People’s Hospital, Weifang, 3Intensive Care Unit, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 4Nursing College, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, People’s Republic of China

Background: Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs).
Methods: A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients’ quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal.
Results: There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients’ satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups.
Conclusion: Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients’ satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.

Keywords: central venous catheter, port, peripherally inserted central catheter, external non-tunneled catheter, complication, cost, cancer patient

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]