This study aimed to evaluate peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted venous access devices (TIVADs) as chemotherapy delivery routes. From May 2016 to April 2019, patients with malignancies who had PICCs or TIVADs inserted for chemotherapy were enrolled. We reviewed the patients’ medical records for information concerning demographics, comorbidities, catheter-related complications, and catheter -service days. All patients included in both groups were also assessed for complication-free catheter survival and completion rates of chemotherapy. A total of 467 catheter insertions (185 PICCs and 282 TIVADs) were included in this study. The PICCs were associated with a higher rate of complication-related catheter removal than TIVADs (hazard ratio, 6.5954; 95% confidence interval, 2.394–18.168; p<0.001). The completion of chemotherapy was observed in 77 (41.6%) patients with PICCs and 128 (45.4%) with TIVADs (p = 0.442). The mean duration of catheter service-days was shorter for the patients in the PICC group who completed chemotherapy than those in the TIVAD group (101.3 ± 93.2 vs 245.3 ± 115.9, respectively, p < 0.001). Although PICC was an independent risk factor for complication-related catheter removal, there was no difference in the chemotherapy completion rate between the groups. Therefore, PICCs need to be considered preferentially in patients who require a chemotherapy delivery route for short-term chemotherapy.

本研究旨在评估外周插入中心导管（PICC）和完全植入静脉通路装置（TIVAD）作为化疗输送途径的效果。2016年5月至2019年4月，纳入PICC或TIVAD置入化疗的恶性肿瘤患者。我们审查了患者的医疗记录，以获取有关人口统计、合并症、导管相关并发症和导管服务天数的信息。还评估了两组中所有患者的无并发症导管存活率和化疗完成率。本研究共纳入 467 例导管插入（185 例 PICC 和 282 例 TIVAD）。与 TIVAD 相比，PICC 与并发症相关导管拔除率较高（风险比，6.5954；95% 置信区间，2.394–18.168；p <0.001）。77 例 (41.6%) 例 PICC 患者和 128 例 (45.4%) 例 TIVAD 患者完成化疗 ( p  = 0.442)。完成化疗的 PICC 组患者的平均导管使用天数比 TIVAD 组患者短（分别为 101.3 ± 93.2 vs 245.3 ± 115.9，p < 0.001 ）  。尽管PICC是并发症相关导管拔除的独立危险因素，但各组之间的化疗完成率没有差异。因此，对于需要化疗途径进行短期化疗的患者，需要优先考虑PICC。