Main Article Content
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of totally implanted venous access ports on the quality of life and patient satisfaction of cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: The study was comprised of patients who underwent implantation of a central venous port catheter (CVPC) for chemotherapy treatment at our hospital’s oncology department and continued with follow-up and treatment. The researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with the participants in which the latter responded to 15 questions concerning the effects of the port catheter on daily quality of life and satisfaction with the implantation procedure.
Results: A total of 260 patients participated in the study. Port-related complications were observed in 54 patients (20.7%), the most common being catheter occlusion. Participants expressed high levels of satisfaction and stated that the CVPC had a positive effect on their quality of life. Overall satisfaction and quality of life were significantly different for patients who experienced complications compared to those without, however, with the former reporting decreased satisfaction and increased stress and anxiety levels. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the patients who developed complications and those who did not concern their response to the statement: “Faced with a similar situation requiring a port catheter, I would make the same decision" (54.5% versus 52%, p = .188).
Conclusion: Most patients reported overall satisfaction with the CVPC system while noting a minor negative impact on daily life. Complications related to the implantation procedure have statistically been shown to be a predictor of satisfaction and quality of life.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
2. Ringash J, Au HJ, Siu LL, et al. Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: The CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial. Cancer. 2014;120(2):181-189.
3. Stevens CS, Lemon B, Lockwood GA, Waldron JN, Bezjak A,Ringash J. The development and validation of a qualityof-life questionnaire for head and neck cancer patients with enteral feeding tubes: the QOL-EF. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(8):1175-1182.
4. Biffi R, Pozzi S, Agazzi A, et al. Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients. Annals of Oncology. 2004; 15: 296-300.
5. Burns KEA, McLaren A. Catheter-related right atrial thrombus and pulmonary embolism: A case report and systematic review of the literature. Can Respir J. 2009; 16: 163-165.
6. Maurer MH, Beck A, Hamm B, Gebauer B. Central venous portcatheters: evaluation of patients’ satisfaction with implantation under local anesthesia. The Journal of Vascular Access. 2009; 10: 27-32.
7. Nagel SN, Teichgräber UKM, Kausche S, Lehmann A. Satisfaction and quality of life: a survey-based assessment in patients with a totally implantable venous port system. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21(2):197-204
8. Zaza C, Baine N. Cancer pain and psychosocial factors: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2002; 24: 526-542.
9. Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ. Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(4):1267.
10. Biffi R, Toro A, Pozzi S, Di Carlo I. Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved? Support Care Cancer. 2014; 22(6): 1705-1714.
11. Paleczny J, Banyś-Jafernik B, Gazurek K, Kierpiec K, Szczerba H, Zipser P. Long-term totally implantable venous access port systems–one center experience. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2013; 45(4): 215-222
12. Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP, et al. Patients' attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33(1): 39-43.
13. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35(3): 241-246.
14. Vermeulin T, Lahbib H, Lottin M, et al. Patients' perception and attitude to totally implantable venous access for urologic or digestive cancer: A cross-sectional study. Bull Cancer. 2019; 106(11): 959-968.
15. Moreira H, Canavarro MC. A longitudinal study about the body image and psychosocial adjustment of breast cancer patients during the course of the disease. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2010; 14: 263-270.
16. DeFrank JT, Mehta CC, Stein KD, Baker F. Body image dissatisfaction in cancer survivors. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2007; 34: 36-41.
17. Yanık F, Karamustafaoğlu YA, Karataş A, Yörük Y. Experience in totally implantable venous port catheter: Analysis of 3,000 patients in 12 years. Turkish Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2018; 26(3): 422-428.
18. Ma L, Liu Y, Wang J, Chang Y, Yu L, Geng C. Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications: A single-institution retrospective analysis of 2,996 breast cancer patients. Molecular and Clinical Oncology. 2016; 4: 456-460.
19. Bertoglio S, Cafiero F, Meszaros P, et al. PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J Vasc Access. 2019 Nov 1:1129729819884482. doi: 10.1177/1129729819884482
20. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, et al. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008; 34: 222-226.
21. Kang JR, Long LH, Yan SW, Wei WW, Jun HZ, Chen W. Peripherally inserted central catheter-related vein thrombosis in patients with lung cancer. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2017; 23(2): 181-186.