Morbidity-mortality conference for adverse events associated with totally implanted venous access for cancer chemotherapy

• Published in: Supportive care in cancer 2016-04, Vol.24 (4), p.1857-1863
• Main Authors: Merle, Véronique, Marini, Hélène, Di Fiore, Frédéric, Lottin, Marion, Gray, Christian, Loeb, Agnès, Fred, Akpéné, Contentin, Nathalie, Muir, Jean-François, Thiberville, Luc, Pfister, Christian, Huet, Emmanuel, Peillon, Christophe, Michel, Pierre, Czernichow, Pierre
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Antineoplastic agents; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Central Venous Catheters - adverse effects; Central Venous Catheters - utilization; Chemotherapy; Complications and side effects; Conferences, meetings and seminars; Female; Humans; Intravenous therapy; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Morbidity; Mortality; Neoplasms - complications; Neoplasms - drug therapy; Neoplasms - mortality; Nursing; Nursing Research; Oncology; Original Article; Pain Medicine; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Rehabilitation Medicine
• ISSN: 0941-4355; 1433-7339
• DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2969-1

Purpose Although considered safer than central venous catheters for administration of cancer chemotherapy, totally implanted venous access (TIVA) is associated with adverse events that may impair prognosis and quality of life of patients receiving chemotherapy. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and interest of surveillance of cancer chemotherapy TIVA-adverse events (AE), associated with morbidity-mortality conferences (MMCs) on TIVA-AE. Methods We performed a prospective interventional study in two hospitals (a university hospital and a comprehensive care center). For each cancer chemotherapy care pathway within each hospital, we set up surveillance of TIVA-AE and MMC on these events. Patients included in surveillance were those with a TIVA either placed or used for chemotherapy cycles in one of the participating wards. Feasibility of MMC was assessed by the number of MMC meetings that actually took place and the number of participants at each meeting. The interest of MMC was assessed by the number of TIVA-AE identified and analyzed, and the number and type of improvement actions selected and actually implemented. Results We recorded 0.41 adverse events per 1000 TIVA-day. MMCs were implemented in all care pathways, with sustained pluriprofessional attendance throughout the survey; 39 improvement actions were identified during meetings, and 18 were actually implemented. Conclusions Surveillance of TIVA-AE associated with MMC is feasible and helps change practices. It could be useful for improving care of patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy.