A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A multicentric Italian experience

Francesca Martella, Vanda Salutari, Claudia Marchetti, Carmela Pisano, Marilena Di Napoli, Francesca Pietta, Dina Centineo, Anna M. Caringella, Angela Musella, Luisa Fioretto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)990-994
Number of pages5
JournalAnti-Cancer Drugs
Volume26
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 7 2015

Fingerprint

trabectedin
Central Venous Catheters
Equipment and Supplies
Catheters
Device Removal
Costs and Cost Analysis
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures

Keywords

  • peripherally inserted central venous catheters
  • retrospective analysis
  • trabectedin infusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters : A multicentric Italian experience. / Martella, Francesca; Salutari, Vanda; Marchetti, Claudia; Pisano, Carmela; Di Napoli, Marilena; Pietta, Francesca; Centineo, Dina; Caringella, Anna M.; Musella, Angela; Fioretto, Luisa.

In: Anti-Cancer Drugs, Vol. 26, No. 9, 07.09.2015, p. 990-994.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Martella, F, Salutari, V, Marchetti, C, Pisano, C, Di Napoli, M, Pietta, F, Centineo, D, Caringella, AM, Musella, A & Fioretto, L 2015, 'A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A multicentric Italian experience', Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 990-994. https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000000275
Martella, Francesca ; Salutari, Vanda ; Marchetti, Claudia ; Pisano, Carmela ; Di Napoli, Marilena ; Pietta, Francesca ; Centineo, Dina ; Caringella, Anna M. ; Musella, Angela ; Fioretto, Luisa. / A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters : A multicentric Italian experience. In: Anti-Cancer Drugs. 2015 ; Vol. 26, No. 9. pp. 990-994.
@article{492dc218ef5c48c0ad91a1e64d35ca77,
title = "A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters: A multicentric Italian experience",
abstract = "The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year).",
keywords = "peripherally inserted central venous catheters, retrospective analysis, trabectedin infusion",
author = "Francesca Martella and Vanda Salutari and Claudia Marchetti and Carmela Pisano and {Di Napoli}, Marilena and Francesca Pietta and Dina Centineo and Caringella, {Anna M.} and Angela Musella and Luisa Fioretto",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1097/CAD.0000000000000275",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "990--994",
journal = "Anti-Cancer Drugs",
issn = "0959-4973",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A retrospective analysis of trabectedin infusion by peripherally inserted central venous catheters

T2 - A multicentric Italian experience

AU - Martella, Francesca

AU - Salutari, Vanda

AU - Marchetti, Claudia

AU - Pisano, Carmela

AU - Di Napoli, Marilena

AU - Pietta, Francesca

AU - Centineo, Dina

AU - Caringella, Anna M.

AU - Musella, Angela

AU - Fioretto, Luisa

PY - 2015/9/7

Y1 - 2015/9/7

N2 - The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year).

AB - The European Medicines Agency strongly recommends administration of trabectedin through a central venous catheter (CVC) to minimize the risk of extravasation. However, CVCs place patients at risk of catheter-related complications and have a significant budgetary impact for oncology departments. The most frequently used CVCs are subcutaneously implanted PORT-chamber catheters (PORTs); peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are relatively new. We reviewed data of trabectedin-treated patients to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the use of PORTs and PICCs in six Italian centres. Data on 102 trabectedin-treated patients (20 with sarcoma, 80 with ovarian cancer and two with cervical cancer) were evaluated. Forty-five patients received trabectedin by a PICC, inserted by trained nurses using an ultrasound-guided technique at the bedside, whereas 57 patients received trabectedin infusion by a PORT, requiring a day surgery procedure in the hospital by a surgeon. Device dislocation and infections were reported in four patients, equally distributed between PORT or PICC users. Thrombosis occurred in a single patient with a PORT. Complications requiring devices removal were not reported during any of the 509 cycles of therapy (median 5; range 1-20). PICC misplacement or early malfunctions were not reported during trabectedin infusion. The cost-efficiency ratio favours PORT over PICC only when the device is used for more than 1 year. Our data suggest that trabectedin infusion by PICC is safe and well accepted, with a preferable cost-efficiency ratio compared with PORT in patients requiring short-term use of the device (≤1 year).

KW - peripherally inserted central venous catheters

KW - retrospective analysis

KW - trabectedin infusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941008089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941008089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000275

DO - 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000275

M3 - Article

C2 - 26241804

AN - SCOPUS:84941008089

VL - 26

SP - 990

EP - 994

JO - Anti-Cancer Drugs

JF - Anti-Cancer Drugs

SN - 0959-4973

IS - 9

ER -