Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Totally implantable venous access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is not known which type of catheter is most at risk of thrombosis. Objective: We aimed to study the incidence of P...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wang, Pengpeng, Soh, Kim Lam, Ying, Yanping, Liu, Yuanhang, Huang, Xueling, Huang, Jinlan
Format: Article
Published: Elsevier BV 2022
Online Access:http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/103111/
_version_ 1848863938021687296
author Wang, Pengpeng
Soh, Kim Lam
Ying, Yanping
Liu, Yuanhang
Huang, Xueling
Huang, Jinlan
author_facet Wang, Pengpeng
Soh, Kim Lam
Ying, Yanping
Liu, Yuanhang
Huang, Xueling
Huang, Jinlan
author_sort Wang, Pengpeng
building UPM Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Background: Totally implantable venous access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is not known which type of catheter is most at risk of thrombosis. Objective: We aimed to study the incidence of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in cancer patients by a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in cancer patients were included. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate odd ratio (OR). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: In total, 22 studies comprising 11,940 patients were retrieved. Our meta-analysis of 22 studies suggested that the risk of PORT-related VTE was lower than that of PICC-related VTE in cancer patients (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25–0.58). The subgroup analysis showed that the risk of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE is different in different regions. In the non-Asian countries, PORTs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with PICCs. (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.27–0.61). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in the Asian countries (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.05–1.12). Conclusions: PORTs are associated with a lower risk of VTE than PICCs in cancer patients. The risk of VTE and benefits should be considered when selecting PORTs or PICCs for cancer patients.
first_indexed 2025-11-15T13:40:52Z
format Article
id upm-103111
institution Universiti Putra Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-15T13:40:52Z
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier BV
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling upm-1031112024-06-30T23:55:15Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/103111/ Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wang, Pengpeng Soh, Kim Lam Ying, Yanping Liu, Yuanhang Huang, Xueling Huang, Jinlan Background: Totally implantable venous access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is not known which type of catheter is most at risk of thrombosis. Objective: We aimed to study the incidence of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in cancer patients by a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in cancer patients were included. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate odd ratio (OR). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: In total, 22 studies comprising 11,940 patients were retrieved. Our meta-analysis of 22 studies suggested that the risk of PORT-related VTE was lower than that of PICC-related VTE in cancer patients (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.25–0.58). The subgroup analysis showed that the risk of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE is different in different regions. In the non-Asian countries, PORTs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with PICCs. (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.27–0.61). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of PORT-related VTE and PICC-related VTE in the Asian countries (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.05–1.12). Conclusions: PORTs are associated with a lower risk of VTE than PICCs in cancer patients. The risk of VTE and benefits should be considered when selecting PORTs or PICCs for cancer patients. Elsevier BV 2022-05 Article PeerReviewed Wang, Pengpeng and Soh, Kim Lam and Ying, Yanping and Liu, Yuanhang and Huang, Xueling and Huang, Jinlan (2022) Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thrombosis Research, 213. pp. 34-42. ISSN 0049-3848 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0049384822000688 10.1016/j.thromres.2022.02.024
spellingShingle Wang, Pengpeng
Soh, Kim Lam
Ying, Yanping
Liu, Yuanhang
Huang, Xueling
Huang, Jinlan
Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Risk of VTE associated with PORTs and PICCs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort risk of vte associated with ports and piccs in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/103111/
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/103111/
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/103111/