Loading…
Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies
Purpose Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patien...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Supportive care in cancer 2014, Vol.22 (1), p.121-128 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3 |
| container_end_page | 128 |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 121 |
| container_title | Supportive care in cancer |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Patel, G. S. Jain, K. Kumar, R. Strickland, A. H. Pellegrini, L. Slavotinek, J. Eaton, M. McLeay, W. Price, T. Ly, M. Ullah, S. Koczwara, B. Kichenadasse, G. Karapetis, C. S. |
| description | Purpose
Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
Methods
Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.
Results
Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86,
P
= 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days,
P
= 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %,
P
= 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.
Conclusions
Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1462485210</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A354933847</galeid><sourcerecordid>A354933847</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU2L1jAUhYsozuvoD3AjATe66Jg0ST-WQ_FjYEAXui5petNmaJOapAPvb_XPeGtHmY10UXhyzj2Xe7LsNaNXjNLqQ6RUFjSnjOesESxnT7ITE5znFefN0-xEdyi4lBfZixjvKGVVJYvn2UUh0FnX4pT9av2yqmCjd8QbskKw6wRBzfOZWBchJBiIBpcQkXtwfotEqzRBghDJu283bfseeYjI49brLSkHKNrtyzort_tXH1KuJ7X0EB65-zPRmD5bRBbzlcMoHxMxPpAVGcZGEkCDvbduJHqCxad9u_X8R-O8yycFi0p-9iOOmcmiZjs65bSF-DJ7ZtQc4dXD_zL78enj9_ZLfvv18017fZtrXtUpl31FgUlZlmWNh6OlMapsjBG8FEgUlYzVJV6Oi8ZwUw99A0UtdNMAN3IAfpm9Peauwf_cIKbuzm_BYWTHRFmIWhaMourqUI1qhs464_GmGr8BFqu9A2ORX3MpGs5rUaGBHQYdfIwBTLcGu6hw7hjt9v67o_8O--_2_juGnjcPq2z9AsM_x9_CUVAcgohPboTwaNf_Tv0NToLArg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1462485210</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies</title><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Springer Nature</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><creator>Patel, G. S. ; Jain, K. ; Kumar, R. ; Strickland, A. H. ; Pellegrini, L. ; Slavotinek, J. ; Eaton, M. ; McLeay, W. ; Price, T. ; Ly, M. ; Ullah, S. ; Koczwara, B. ; Kichenadasse, G. ; Karapetis, C. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Patel, G. S. ; Jain, K. ; Kumar, R. ; Strickland, A. H. ; Pellegrini, L. ; Slavotinek, J. ; Eaton, M. ; McLeay, W. ; Price, T. ; Ly, M. ; Ullah, S. ; Koczwara, B. ; Kichenadasse, G. ; Karapetis, C. S.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
Methods
Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.
Results
Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86,
P
= 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days,
P
= 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %,
P
= 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.
Conclusions
Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0941-4355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-7339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24005884</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Aged ; Analysis ; Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage ; Australia ; Cancer ; Catheterization ; Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Central Venous - economics ; Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation ; Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Peripheral - economics ; Catheterization, Peripheral - instrumentation ; Catheters ; Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects ; Central Venous Catheters - economics ; Chemotherapy ; Comparative studies ; Drug delivery systems ; Economic aspects ; Female ; Health care expenditures ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - blood ; Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Neoplasms - economics ; Nursing ; Nursing Research ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Pain Medicine ; Quality of Life ; Rehabilitation Medicine ; Survival Rate ; Thrombosis - economics ; Thrombosis - etiology ; Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects ; Vascular Access Devices - economics</subject><ispartof>Supportive care in cancer, 2014, Vol.22 (1), p.121-128</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Springer</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1462485210/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1462485210?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21394,21395,27924,27925,33611,34530,43733,44115,74221,74639</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24005884$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Patel, G. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jain, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strickland, A. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellegrini, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slavotinek, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaton, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLeay, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ly, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullah, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koczwara, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kichenadasse, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karapetis, C. S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies</title><title>Supportive care in cancer</title><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><description>Purpose
Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
Methods
Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.
Results
Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86,
P
= 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days,
P
= 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %,
P
= 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.
Conclusions
Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Catheterization</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - economics</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - economics</subject><subject>Catheterization, Peripheral - instrumentation</subject><subject>Catheters</subject><subject>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</subject><subject>Central Venous Catheters - economics</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Drug delivery systems</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health care expenditures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - blood</subject><subject>Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Neoplasms - economics</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Nursing Research</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain Medicine</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Rehabilitation Medicine</subject><subject>Survival Rate</subject><subject>Thrombosis - economics</subject><subject>Thrombosis - etiology</subject><subject>Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects</subject><subject>Vascular Access Devices - economics</subject><issn>0941-4355</issn><issn>1433-7339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU2L1jAUhYsozuvoD3AjATe66Jg0ST-WQ_FjYEAXui5petNmaJOapAPvb_XPeGtHmY10UXhyzj2Xe7LsNaNXjNLqQ6RUFjSnjOesESxnT7ITE5znFefN0-xEdyi4lBfZixjvKGVVJYvn2UUh0FnX4pT9av2yqmCjd8QbskKw6wRBzfOZWBchJBiIBpcQkXtwfotEqzRBghDJu283bfseeYjI49brLSkHKNrtyzort_tXH1KuJ7X0EB65-zPRmD5bRBbzlcMoHxMxPpAVGcZGEkCDvbduJHqCxad9u_X8R-O8yycFi0p-9iOOmcmiZjs65bSF-DJ7ZtQc4dXD_zL78enj9_ZLfvv18017fZtrXtUpl31FgUlZlmWNh6OlMapsjBG8FEgUlYzVJV6Oi8ZwUw99A0UtdNMAN3IAfpm9Peauwf_cIKbuzm_BYWTHRFmIWhaMourqUI1qhs464_GmGr8BFqu9A2ORX3MpGs5rUaGBHQYdfIwBTLcGu6hw7hjt9v67o_8O--_2_juGnjcPq2z9AsM_x9_CUVAcgohPboTwaNf_Tv0NToLArg</recordid><startdate>2014</startdate><enddate>2014</enddate><creator>Patel, G. S.</creator><creator>Jain, K.</creator><creator>Kumar, R.</creator><creator>Strickland, A. H.</creator><creator>Pellegrini, L.</creator><creator>Slavotinek, J.</creator><creator>Eaton, M.</creator><creator>McLeay, W.</creator><creator>Price, T.</creator><creator>Ly, M.</creator><creator>Ullah, S.</creator><creator>Koczwara, B.</creator><creator>Kichenadasse, G.</creator><creator>Karapetis, C. S.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2014</creationdate><title>Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies</title><author>Patel, G. S. ; Jain, K. ; Kumar, R. ; Strickland, A. H. ; Pellegrini, L. ; Slavotinek, J. ; Eaton, M. ; McLeay, W. ; Price, T. ; Ly, M. ; Ullah, S. ; Koczwara, B. ; Kichenadasse, G. ; Karapetis, C. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Catheterization</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - economics</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - economics</topic><topic>Catheterization, Peripheral - instrumentation</topic><topic>Catheters</topic><topic>Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects</topic><topic>Central Venous Catheters - economics</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Drug delivery systems</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health care expenditures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - blood</topic><topic>Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Neoplasms - economics</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Nursing Research</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain Medicine</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Rehabilitation Medicine</topic><topic>Survival Rate</topic><topic>Thrombosis - economics</topic><topic>Thrombosis - etiology</topic><topic>Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects</topic><topic>Vascular Access Devices - economics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Patel, G. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jain, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Strickland, A. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellegrini, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slavotinek, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eaton, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLeay, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ly, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ullah, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koczwara, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kichenadasse, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karapetis, C. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Patel, G. S.</au><au>Jain, K.</au><au>Kumar, R.</au><au>Strickland, A. H.</au><au>Pellegrini, L.</au><au>Slavotinek, J.</au><au>Eaton, M.</au><au>McLeay, W.</au><au>Price, T.</au><au>Ly, M.</au><au>Ullah, S.</au><au>Koczwara, B.</au><au>Kichenadasse, G.</au><au>Karapetis, C. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies</atitle><jtitle>Supportive care in cancer</jtitle><stitle>Support Care Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Support Care Cancer</addtitle><date>2014</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>121</spage><epage>128</epage><pages>121-128</pages><issn>0941-4355</issn><eissn>1433-7339</eissn><abstract>Purpose
Indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) have been increasingly used to enable delivery of intravenous chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the safety and cost of two commonly used CVCs, peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICCs) and ports, in the delivery of chemotherapy in patients with non-haematological malignancies.
Methods
Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PICC or a port. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major complications, which required removal of the CVC and secondary endpoints included occurrence of any complications.
Results
Port devices were associated with fewer complications compared with PICC lines (hazard ratio of 0.25, CI, 0.09–0.86,
P
= 0.038). Major complication rate was lower in the port arm compared to the PICC arm (0.047 versus 0.193 major complications/100 catheter days,
P
= 0.034) with 6 versus 20 % of patients experiencing major complications, respectively. Thrombosis, the most common complication, was significantly higher in the PICC arm compared to the port arm (25 versus 0 %,
P
= 0.013). Quality of life and cost estimates did not differ significantly between the two arms.
Conclusions
Port devices are associated with a lower risk of complications, with no difference in cost, compared to PICC lines in patients with non-haematological malignancies receiving intravenous chemotherapy.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>24005884</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0941-4355 |
| ispartof | Supportive care in cancer, 2014, Vol.22 (1), p.121-128 |
| issn | 0941-4355 1433-7339 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1462485210 |
| source | Social Science Premium Collection; Springer Nature; Sociology Collection |
| subjects | Aged Analysis Antineoplastic Agents - administration & dosage Australia Cancer Catheterization Catheterization, Central Venous - adverse effects Catheterization, Central Venous - economics Catheterization, Central Venous - instrumentation Catheterization, Peripheral - adverse effects Catheterization, Peripheral - economics Catheterization, Peripheral - instrumentation Catheters Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects Central Venous Catheters - economics Chemotherapy Comparative studies Drug delivery systems Economic aspects Female Health care expenditures Humans Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neoplasms - blood Neoplasms - drug therapy Neoplasms - economics Nursing Nursing Research Oncology Original Article Pain Medicine Quality of Life Rehabilitation Medicine Survival Rate Thrombosis - economics Thrombosis - etiology Vascular Access Devices - adverse effects Vascular Access Devices - economics |
| title | Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T17%3A34%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20peripherally%20inserted%20central%20venous%20catheters%20(PICC)%20versus%20subcutaneously%20implanted%20port-chamber%20catheters%20by%20complication%20and%20cost%20for%20patients%20receiving%20chemotherapy%20for%20non-haematological%20malignancies&rft.jtitle=Supportive%20care%20in%20cancer&rft.au=Patel,%20G.%20S.&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=121&rft.epage=128&rft.pages=121-128&rft.issn=0941-4355&rft.eissn=1433-7339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00520-013-1941-1&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA354933847%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-5b70e155666873306ffa69ff4364687a051186775349f3f8db9e284c99e3f5de3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1462485210&rft_id=info:pmid/24005884&rft_galeid=A354933847&rfr_iscdi=true |