Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

<h4>Background</h4>Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic studies search in the public databases Pub...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Baiying Liu, Zhiwei Wu, Changwei Lin, Liang Li, Xuechun Kuang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/a3f01971ebce499d9c5c52445d550460
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:a3f01971ebce499d9c5c52445d550460
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:a3f01971ebce499d9c5c52445d5504602021-12-02T20:15:18ZApplicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0255473https://doaj.org/article/a3f01971ebce499d9c5c52445d5504602021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255473https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen studies were included in this final meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that compared with PICC, TIVAP was associated with a higher first-puncture success rate (OR:2.028, 95%CI:1.25-3.289, P<0.05), a lower accidental removal rate (OR:0.447, 95%CI:0.225-0.889, P<0.05) and lower complication rates, including infection (OR:0.570, 95%CI: 0.383-0.850, P<0.05), occlusion (OR:0.172, 95%CI:0.092-0.324, P<0.05), malposition (OR:0.279, 95%CI:0.128-0.608, P<0.05), thrombosis (OR:0.191, 95%CI, 0.111-0.329, P<0.05), phlebitis (OR:0.102, 95%CI, 0.038-0.273, P<0.05), allergy (OR:0.155, 95%CI:0.035-0.696, P<0.05). However, no difference was found in catheter life span (P>0.05) and extravasation (P>0.05). Moreover, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use (weighted mean difference:3.132, 95%CI:2.434-3.83, P<0.05), but is much similar in 12 months use (P>0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>For the patients with non-hematological malignancies, TIVAP was superior to PICC in the data related to placement and the incidence of complications. Meanwhile, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use, but it is much similar in twelve-month use.Baiying LiuZhiwei WuChangwei LinLiang LiXuechun KuangPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 8, p e0255473 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Baiying Liu Zhiwei Wu Changwei Lin Liang Li Xuechun Kuang Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Applicability of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) and peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) in non-hematological malignancies patients remains controversial.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic studies search in the public databases PubMed, EMBASE, Wan Fang, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (updated to May 1, 2020) was performed to identify eligible researches. All statistical tests in this meta-analysis were performed using Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX). A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen studies were included in this final meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that compared with PICC, TIVAP was associated with a higher first-puncture success rate (OR:2.028, 95%CI:1.25-3.289, P<0.05), a lower accidental removal rate (OR:0.447, 95%CI:0.225-0.889, P<0.05) and lower complication rates, including infection (OR:0.570, 95%CI: 0.383-0.850, P<0.05), occlusion (OR:0.172, 95%CI:0.092-0.324, P<0.05), malposition (OR:0.279, 95%CI:0.128-0.608, P<0.05), thrombosis (OR:0.191, 95%CI, 0.111-0.329, P<0.05), phlebitis (OR:0.102, 95%CI, 0.038-0.273, P<0.05), allergy (OR:0.155, 95%CI:0.035-0.696, P<0.05). However, no difference was found in catheter life span (P>0.05) and extravasation (P>0.05). Moreover, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use (weighted mean difference:3.132, 95%CI:2.434-3.83, P<0.05), but is much similar in 12 months use (P>0.05).<h4>Conclusion</h4>For the patients with non-hematological malignancies, TIVAP was superior to PICC in the data related to placement and the incidence of complications. Meanwhile, TIVAP is more expensive compared with PICC in six-month use, but it is much similar in twelve-month use.
format	article
author	Baiying Liu Zhiwei Wu Changwei Lin Liang Li Xuechun Kuang
author_facet	Baiying Liu Zhiwei Wu Changwei Lin Liang Li Xuechun Kuang
author_sort	Baiying Liu
title	Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
title_short	Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
title_full	Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
title_fullStr	Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
title_full_unstemmed	Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
title_sort	applicability of tivap versus picc in non-hematological malignancies patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/a3f01971ebce499d9c5c52445d550460
work_keys_str_mv	AT baiyingliu applicabilityoftivapversuspiccinnonhematologicalmalignanciespatientsametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT zhiweiwu applicabilityoftivapversuspiccinnonhematologicalmalignanciespatientsametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT changweilin applicabilityoftivapversuspiccinnonhematologicalmalignanciespatientsametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT liangli applicabilityoftivapversuspiccinnonhematologicalmalignanciespatientsametaanalysisandsystematicreview AT xuechunkuang applicabilityoftivapversuspiccinnonhematologicalmalignanciespatientsametaanalysisandsystematicreview
_version_	1718374598673694720

Applicability of TIVAP versus PICC in non-hematological malignancies patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Ejemplares similares