Comparison of outcomes of central venous catheters in patients with solid and hematologic neoplasms: an Italian real-world analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Although many reports have analyzed the outcomes of central venous catheters (CVCs) in oncologic and oncohematologic patients, current guidelines do not routinely recommend a specific type of CVC over the other.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 178 patients with CVCs referred to an Italian specialized cancer center between January 2016 and December 2018. The analysis compares midterm peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) with long-term centrally inserted catheters, including totally implanted ports and tunneled catheters with central insertion (tCVCs).

RESULTS

A total of 130 PICCs (73%) and 48 tCVCs (27%) were analyzed. The overall complication rate was significantly increased in the PICC cohort compared to the tCVC cohort (43.1% vs 25%, respectively; p = 0.037), leading to complication-related device removal in 30.8% of PICCs vs 12.5% of tCVCs (p = 0.013). No significant differences in terms of catheter-related thromboses (p = 0.676) or catheter-related infections (p = 0.140) were detected. Nonthrombotic obstructions were significantly higher in the PICC group compared to the tCVC cohort (p = 0.006). Overall complication-free survival was significantly longer for tCVCs compared to PICCs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.262; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.128-0.536; p < 0.0001), as well as obstruction-free survival (HR, 0.082; 95% CI, 0.018-0.372; p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the type of CVC was independently correlated with the occurrence of any complication (HR, 0.273; 95% CI, 0.135-0.553; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This Italian real-world experience suggests that PICCs are associated with a higher risk of overall complications compared with tCVCs. Catheter choice in oncologic patients should be guided by treatment type and duration, risk-benefit assessment, patient preferences, and compliance.