4.6 Article

Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 37, Pages 4709-4714

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.15.4709

Keywords

Central venous port; Chemotherapy; Risk factor; Cancer patient; Multivariate analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To analyze the risk factors for central port failure in cancer patients administered chemotherapy, using univariate and multivariate analyses. METHODS: A total of 1348 totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) were implanted into 1280 cancer patients in this cohort study. A Cox proportional hazard model was applied to analyze risk factors for failure of TIVADs. Log-rank test was used to compare actuarial survival rates. Infection, thrombosis, and surgical complication rates (chi(2) test or Fisher's exact test) were compared in relation to the risk factors. RESULTS: Increasing age, male gender and open-ended catheter use were significant risk factors reducing survival of TIVADs as determined by univariate and multivariate analyses. Hematogenous malignancy decreased the survival time of TIVADs; this reduction was not statistically significant by univariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.336, 95% CI: 0.966-1.849, P = 0.080)]. However, it became a significant risk factor by multivariate analysis (HR = 1.499, 95% CI: 1.079-2.083, P = 0.016) when correlated with variables of age, sex and catheter type. Close-ended (Groshong) catheters had a lower thrombosis rate than open-ended catheters (2.5% vs 5%, P = 0.015). Hematogenous malignancy had higher infection rates than solid malignancy (10.5% vs 2.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increasing age, male gender, open-ended catheters and hematogenous malignancy were risk factors for TIVAD failure. Close-ended catheters had lower thrombosis rates and hematogenous malignancy had higher infection rates. (C) 2009 The WIG Press and Baishideng. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available