Comparisons of outcomes and survivals for two central venous access port systems†
This study was conducted in the Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
Background
This study compares the outcomes and survivals between two central venous access port systems.
Study Design
Medical records from 298 cancer patients who had received open-end (Deltec, N = 159) or closed-end (Groshong, N = 139) port catheter insertions were retrospectively reviewed.
Methods
The infection, thrombosis, and surgical complication rates (chi-square test), as well as mean catheter-indwelling-days (t-test) were compared. Kaplan Meier analysis and stratified log rank test were used to compare actuarial survival rates. Cox proportion hazard model was applied to analyze the outcomes predictors.
Results
The total catheter-indwelling-day was 116,603 days in general for this cohort. The Groshong catheters (569 ± 386.1 days) had longer (P < 0.001) mean catheter-indwelling-day than did Deltec catheters (239 ± 235.6 days). But the per 1,000 catheter day infection (Deltec 0.18, Groshong 0.16), thrombosis (Deltec 0.07, Groshong 0.06), and surgical complication rates (Deltec 0.07, Groshong 0.02) were equivalent (P > 0.05) between two groups. Patients with leukemia were at higher risk (odds ratio 13.4, P = 0.009) to develop adverse events. However, two types of catheters had similar actuarial survival rates at end of follow up (P > 0.05).
Conclusion
We found infection, thrombosis occlusion, surgical complication, and actuarial device survival rates were similar between Deltec and Groshong groups. Hematogenous malignancy was a risk factor for catheter failure. J. Surg. Oncol. 2005;91:61–66. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
