This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bow, E. J. Articles by Clinch, J. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bow, E. J. Articles by Clinch, J. J. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports Systems for Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Solid Tissue Malignancies: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Examining the Safety, Efficacy, Costs, and Impact on Quality of Life

From the Departments of Medicine and Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba; Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation; and World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Quality of Life Research in Cancer, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Address reprint requests to E.J. Bow, MD, Room GD600, Health Sciences Centre, 820 Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3A 1R9; email ebow{at}hsc.mb.ca

PURPOSE: To examine the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life of venous access ports implanted at the outset of a course of intravenous cancer chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults beginning a course of intravenous chemotherapy at two university-affiliated hospitals were randomly allocated to have venous access using a surgically implanted venous access port (Port-a-Cath; Pharmacia, Canada Inc, Montreal, Québec, Canada) or using standard peripheral venous access. All accesses were documented by number, route, purpose, and procedure duration. Outcome measurements included port complications, access strategy failure, access-related anxiety and pain, quality of life (Functional Living Index–Cancer [FLI-C]), and costs.

RESULTS: Port complication rates were low (0.23/1,000 days). Failure occurred in two (3.4%) of 59 port subjects and 16 (26.7%) of 60 controls (P = .0004) at a median period of 26 days after randomization (95% confidence interval, 8 to 92). Peripheral accesses in port subjects took less time, had less access-related anxiety and pain, and were less costly to perform than in controls. Allocation had no effect on FLI-C scores. Peripheral access failure correlated with allocation to the control group (P = .007), higher pain scores with intravenous (IV) starts (P = .003), and anxiety with IV starts (P = .01). Venous accessing overall in port patients was four times more costly than that in controls ($2,178/patient v $530/patient, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Ports were safe and effective but had no detectable impact on functional quality of life, despite less access-related anxiety, pain, and discomfort. Because only approximately one quarter of control patients ultimately required central venous access, economic considerations suggest that port-use policies should be based upon defined criteria of need.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Gallieni, M. Pittiruti, and R. Biffi Vascular Access in Oncology Patients CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2008; 58(6): 323 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. BOTHWELL, J. DOOLEY, K. GORDON, and E. WOOD Port-A-Cath use in refractory seizure disorders Arch. Dis. Child., December 1, 2001; 85(6): 510b - 510. [Full Text] [PDF]