Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep;43(9):2245-2249.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05022-x.

Which is Better for Patients with Breast Cancer: Totally Implanted Vascular Access Devices (TIVAD) or Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)?

Tian-Tian Tang  1 , Lei Liu  1 , Chun-Xiao Li  1 , Yun-Tao Li  1 , Tao Zhou  1 , Hai-Ping Li  1 , Jianxin Wang  2
Affiliations

Which is Better for Patients with Breast Cancer: Totally Implanted Vascular Access Devices (TIVAD) or Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC)?

Tian-Tian Tang et al. World J Surg. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Our aim was to compare the applications of totally implanted vascular access devices (TIVAD) and peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in breast cancer patients.

Methods: We analyzed 4080 cases of TIVAD and 1433 cases of PICC at the Breast Center of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University. The success rate, operation time, and procedures of catheterization, as well as the catheterization-related complications, catheter indwelling-related complications, and the utilization conditions were compared between these two methods.

Results: Our results showed that the success rate of catheterization was relatively higher in PICC group (99.5%) than the TIVAD group (99.0%)(χ2 = 3.521, P = 0.038), and the operation time and the rate of catheterization-related complications were lower in PICC (18.65 ± 4.7603 min, 0.91%) compared to TIVAD (29.55 ± 4.0843 min, 1.59%)(t = 38.000, P < 0.01, χ2 = 3.578, P = 0.035). However, the rate of catheter indwelling-related complications was lower in TIVAD group (2.47%) than the PICC group (3.62%)(χ2 = 5.227, P = 0.016), and the catheter care was also better in TIVAD.

Conclusions: Based on these analyses, we recommended TIVAD for the patients who need long-term and high-dose chemotherapy and PICC for the patients who need short chemotherapy cycle and live close to the hospital.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Acta Biomed. 2016 Nov 22;87(4-S):23-29 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Aug 1;20(15):3276-81 - PubMed
    1. Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jan;22(1):121-8 - PubMed
    1. Support Care Cancer. 2009 Jul;17(7):811-8 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006 Sep;15(4):342-7 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources