Comparative study of infectious complications of different types of chronic central venous access devices.

Abstract

Background. Various devices for central venous access are widely used in patients with cancer. The authors studied the incidence of infections complications affecting these different devices. Methods. A retrospective study of 111 central venous access devices (VAD) placed in 1992 was conducted. Results. Subcutaneous ports were placed in 42 patients, single lumen Groshong catheters in 45, single lumen Hickman catheters in 15, double lumen Hickman catheters in 5, and double lumen Groshong catheters in 4. Prognostic factors analysis was performed with the log rank test and Cox's multivariate analysis. Different VAD types were compared with the likelihood ratio test. There was no significant difference in the risk of VAD-related infection between Hickman and Groshong catheters. Double lumen catheters were slightly more likely to cause infections complications than single lumen catheters, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.072 and 0.083 for bacteremia and site infection, respectively). No significant difference was observed in the risk of infection between subcutaneous ports and external catheters. Multivariate analysis using Cox's proportional hazards model demonstrated age younger than 50 years as the only significant risk factor, thus younger patients should be monitored more closely. Conclusions. No significant difference was observed in the risk of infection between subcutaneous ports and external catheters. There was a slightly higher risk of infection in double lumen catheters than single lumen catheters, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. Considering the small sample size, the results should be confirmed in larger prospective studies. Cancer 1994; 73:2832–7.