Complications of Central Venous Access Devices Used in Palliative Care Settings for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

<p>(1) Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) have been commonly employed during various courses of anticancer treatment. Currently, there are a few types of clinically available CVADs, which are associated with short-term and long-term complications. However, little is known about the complication rates when CVADs are used only in palliative care settings. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the published literature to evaluate the complication rates of CVADs in this clinical setting. (2) Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to identify publications from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and trial registries. Publications reporting the complication rates of PICCs, central lines, and PORTs in palliative settings for terminally ill cancer patients were included, while those on the use of systemic anticancer therapy and peripheral venous catheters were excluded. The outcome measures included overall complication rate, rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and rate of thromboembolism (TE). This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023404489). (3) Results: Five publications with 327 patients were analyzed, including four studies on PICCs and one study on central lines. No studies on PORTs were eligible for analysis. The overall complication rate for PICCs (pooled estimate 7.02%, 95% CI 0.27–19.10) was higher than that for central lines (1.44%, 95% CI 0.30–4.14, p = 0.002). The risk of CRBSI with PICCs (2.03%, 95% CI 0.00–9.62) was also higher than that with central lines (0.96%, 95% CI 0.12–3.41, p = 0.046). PICCs also had a trend of a higher risk of TE (2.10%, 95% CI 0.00–12.22) compared to central lines (0.48%, 95% CI 0.01–2.64, p = 0.061). (4) Conclusions: PICCs for palliative cancer care were found to have greater complications than central lines. This might aid in the formulation of future recommendation guidelines on the choice of CVAD in this setting.</p>