乳腺癌患者VAP与PICC常见并发症比较的Meta分析

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (9)

Download: PDF (2073 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To compare the risk of common complications between implantable venous port (VAP) and peripheral puncture central catheter (PICC) in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy by meta-analysis. Methods CNKI, Wanfang database, CBM, VIP database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and embase were searched for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies published before April 2022 about the comparison between VAP and PICC in breast cancer patients. RevMan5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Results With 20 articles and total of 5715 patients included, Meta-analysis showed that compared with PICC, VAP could reduce the incidence of venous thrombosis [0.23, (95%CI: 0.14-0.39), P< 0.01] and phlebitis [0.16, (95%CI: 0.11-0.23) , P< 0.01], the incidence of catheter displacement or prolapse [0.12, (95%CI: 0.07-0.23), P< 0.01], the incidence of infection [0.23, (95%CI: 0.16-0.34), P< 0.01], the incidence of tube blocking [0.28, (95%CI: 0.17-0.47), P< 0.01], and the difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the incidence of one-time successful catheterization [1.49, (95%CI: 0.86-2.59), P> 0.05]. Conclusion For breast cancer patients who require long-term chemotherapy, the incidence of common complications from VAP is lower than PICC. The incidence of intravenous port venous thrombosis, phlebitis, catheter displacement or prolapsion, infection and tube blocking is lower than that of PICC, but there is no statistical difference in the one-time successful catheterization between them. Compared with PICC, VAP is a safer and more comfortable venous pathway.

Key words： breast cancer venous port access peripherally inserted central venous catheter complications

Received: 02 August 2022

PACS:

R472

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LIU Hongyan
	FANG Yuqi
	WU Xianlin
	XIANG Qiuhong

Cite this article:

LIU Hongyan,FANG Yuqi,WU Xianlin等. Complications of the VAP and PICC in breast cancer patients: a Meta-analysis[J]. HuNan ShiFan DaXue XueBao(YiXueBan), 2023, 20(3): 124-129.

URL:

http://yxb.hunnu.edu.cn/EN/ OR http://yxb.hunnu.edu.cn/EN/Y2023/V20/I3/124

[1] 孙圣荣. 乳腺癌早期诊断进展[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2013, 21(7): 500-502.
[2] 赫捷, 陈万青.2012年中国肿瘤登记年报[M]. 北京: 军事医学科学出版社, 2012: 122-123.
[3] 张雅聪, 吕章艳, 宋方方, 等. 全球及我国乳腺癌发病和死亡变化趋势[J]. 肿瘤综合治疗电子杂志, 2021, 7(02): 14-20.
[4] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al.Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA cancer J clin, 2018, 68(6): 394-424.
[5] Sung H A-O, Ferlay J, Siegel R A-O, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249.
[6] 郝伟远, 陈玉堂, 林婧, 等. DSA引导下改良股静脉植入输液港术式在恶性肿瘤患者中的应用[J]. 介入放射学杂志, 2021, 30(08): 780-783.
[7] 孔德华, 张蕾, 储静. 肿瘤化疗病人应用植入式静脉输液港与PICC临床效果的系统评价[J]. 护理研究, 2018, 32(09): 1407-1414.
[8] Lefebvre L, Noyon E, Georgescu D, et al.Port catheter versus peripherally inserted central catheter for postoperative chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of 448 patients[J]. Support Care Cancer, 2016, 24(3): 1397-1403.
[9] 宾莲洁, 张爱玲, 叶建森, 等. 植入式静脉输液港辅助化疗与外周静脉穿刺化疗在乳腺癌中应用效果对比[J]. 泰山医学院学报, 2017, 38: 1068-1069.
[10] 李静. VPA与PICC在乳腺癌化学治疗患者中的应用效果观察[J]. 当代护士 (上旬刊), 2017, (05): 78-79.
[11] 于瑞. 不同中心静脉输液途径对乳腺癌患者置管并发症发生的影响[J]. 现代临床护理, 2014, 13(08): 40-43.
[12] 姜海容. 植入式静脉输液港与PICC在乳腺癌化疗中的应用分析[J]. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志, 2018, 2(12): 26.
[13] 徐敏. 植入式静脉输液港与经外周穿刺中心静脉导管在乳腺癌患者中的应用效果分析[J]. 中国医学工程, 2018, 26(06): 9-12.
[14] 魏晓琳. 植入式输液港与PICC在乳腺癌化疗中的应用的比较[J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2015, 44(5): 476-477.
[15] 张丽娟, 辛明珠, 张慧珍, 等. 乳腺癌病人留置PICC与VPA化疗的临床效果比较[J]. 护理研究, 2013, 27(18): 1845-1846.
[16] 莫美珍, 林称喜, 钟华英, 等. 乳腺癌患者应用植入式静脉输液港与PICC的效果比较[J]. 中国实用护理杂志, 2013, 29(24): 19-20.
[17] 李淑琴, 周军, 毕铁强, 等. 乳腺癌患者应用植入式输液港与PICC的价值对比研究[J]. 中国继续医学教育, 2016, 8(21): 247-249.
[18] 李慧, 李志新. 植入式输液港与PICC在乳腺癌患者中的应用比较[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2012, 18(8): 891-893.
[19] 陈红梅, 曹淑芬. 植入式输液港和PICC在乳腺癌患者中的临床应用研究[J]. 临床护理杂志, 2015, 14(01): 72-74.
[20] 邓宏武, 周征宇, 梁英, 等. PICC与CVPAS两种深静脉置管术在乳腺癌患者中的应用比较[J]. 武警医学, 2012, 23(10): 897-898.
[21] 邓朗, 张承圣. VPA与PICC在乳腺癌化疗中的应用比较[J]. 世界最新医学信息文摘, 2018, 18(09): 142+144.
[22] 胡琳琳, 钟云萍, 黄琦, 等. 两种置管方式在乳腺癌治疗中的效果观察[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2016, 31(10): 935-937.
[23] 黄霞, 潘兴艳, 覃智琴, 等. 乳腺癌患者化疗期植入式输液港与PICC受益的对比性研究[J]. 中国继续医学教育, 2018, 10(31): 153-155.
[24] 岳芹, 任珂. 静脉输液港与PICC在乳腺癌化疗中的应用效果研究[J]. 临床医学研究与实践, 2017, 2(09): 13-14.
[25] 郑明康, 陈辉. 外周静脉置入中心静脉导管与植入式静脉输液港在乳腺癌化疗中的应用[J]. 中国医药导报, 2014, 11(29): 47-50+54.
[26] 卢晓婷. 超声引导下植入式静脉输液港与经外周静脉穿刺的中心静脉置管在乳腺癌化疗中的临床应用比较[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2017, 17(01): 13-16.
[27] 夏晶凡. 植入式静脉输液港和PICC在乳腺癌患者中的临床应用疗效观察[J]. 中国医药指南, 2017, 15(34): 142-143.
[28] 钱程, 石静. 植入式静脉输液港与PICC在消化道恶性肿瘤化疗患者中的应用分析[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2020, 35(17): 1606-1608.
[29] Taxbro K, Hammarskjöld F, Thelin B, et al.Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2019, 122(6): 734-741.
[30] Rajasekhar A, Streif M B.How I treat central venous access device-related upper extremity deep vein thrombosis[J]. Blood, 2017, 129(20): 2727-2736.
[31] Falanga A, Rickles F R.Pathophysiology of the thrombophilic state in the cancer patient[J]. Semin Thromb Hemost, 1999, 25(2): 173-182.
[32] 王影新, 刘飞, 赵璇, 等. 乳腺癌化疗患者不同部位植入输液港的对比研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2019, 54(06): 917-921.
[33] 王艳, 杨晓燕. 植入式静脉输液港与PICC导管在恶性肿瘤患者化疗中的效果[J]. 中外医学研究, 2018, 16(06): 170-171.
[34] Araujo C, Silva J P, Antunes P, et al.A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2008, 34(2): 222-226.
[35] 刘伟夫, 余文昌, 张孔志, 等. 植入式静脉输液港与PICC在乳腺癌患者化疗中的应用比较[J]. 中外医疗, 2018, 37(29): 65-67.
[36] 陈静, 彭昕. 不同置管方式化疗乳腺癌患者相关并发症及健康促进行为的比较[J]. 护理学杂志, 2020, 35(13): 37-40.