Complication rates of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted ports in patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy: A retrospective cohort study

11Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

While implanted port catheters (“PORTs”) have historically been the standard device for intravenous systemic anticancer therapy, the use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has increased continuously and reliable catheter selection guidelines are lacking. We compare complication rates of PORTs and PICCs in cancer treatment in a retrospective study of 3365 patients with both solid organ (n = 2612) and hematologic (n = 753) malignancies, between 2001 and 2021. 26.4% (n = 890) of all patients were treated via PICCs and 73.6% (2475) via PORTs. 20.7% (578) experienced a major catheter-related complication with a higher rate in PICCs than in PORTs (23.5% vs 14.9%, P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rieger, M. J., Schenkel, X., Dedic, I., Brunn, T., Gnannt, R., Hofmann, M., … Schwotzer, R. (2023). Complication rates of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted ports in patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy: A retrospective cohort study. International Journal of Cancer, 153(7), 1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34612

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free