European journal of haematology · 2022
Retrospective analysis of the safety of peripherally inserted catheters versus implanted port catheters during first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pénichoux Juliette, Rio Julien, Kammoun Leila, Vermeulin Thomas, Pepin Louis-Ferdinand, Camus Vincent, Dubois Sydney, Bouclet Florian, Alani Mustafa, Contentin Nathalie, Leprêtre Stéphane, Stamatoullas Aspasia, Lanic Hélène, Lemasle Emilie, Ménard Anne-Lise, Lenain Pascal, Gilles-Baray Marie, Georgescu Dragos, Clatot Florian, Tilly Hervé, Jardin Fabrice
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and implanted port catheters (PORTs) are commonly used for the delivery of immunochemotherapy. We compared the safety of the two types of devices in a homogeneous and monocentric population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients who were treated with first-line immunochemotherapy by evaluating the numbers of catheter-related venous thromboses (VTs) and infections that occurred in the six months after implantation according to the type of device.
METHODS: Using a propensity score, the adjusted relative risk (ARR) between the type of catheter and the occurrence of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) of interest was retrospectively determined.
RESULTS: 479 patients were enrolled (266 PORTs/213 PICCs), and 26 VTs (5.4%) and 30 infections (6.3%) were identified in the period following PICC/PORT implantation. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) according to the type of device was 2.6 (95% CI =1.3-5.9, p = .0075). This risk increase associated with the PICC device was significant for both infections (ARR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3-10.9) and thrombosis (ARR = 4; 95% CI = 1.5-11.6).
CONCLUSION: Our study supports the preferential use of PORTs for the first line of treatment for DLBCL patients.
METHODS: Using a propensity score, the adjusted relative risk (ARR) between the type of catheter and the occurrence of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) of interest was retrospectively determined.
RESULTS: 479 patients were enrolled (266 PORTs/213 PICCs), and 26 VTs (5.4%) and 30 infections (6.3%) were identified in the period following PICC/PORT implantation. The adjusted relative risk (ARR) of catheter-related complications (infection and/or VT) according to the type of device was 2.6 (95% CI =1.3-5.9, p = .0075). This risk increase associated with the PICC device was significant for both infections (ARR = 3.2; 95% CI = 1.3-10.9) and thrombosis (ARR = 4; 95% CI = 1.5-11.6).
CONCLUSION: Our study supports the preferential use of PORTs for the first line of treatment for DLBCL patients.