Comparisons of outcomes and survivals for two central venous access port systems

BACKGROUND: This study compares the outcomes and survivals between two central venous access port systems. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records from 298 cancer patients who had received open-end (Deltec, N = 159) or closed-end (Groshong, N = 139) port catheter insertions were retrospectively reviewed. METHODS: The infection, thrombosis, and surgical complication rates (chi-square test), as well as mean catheter-indwelling-days (t-test) were compared. Kaplan Meier analysis and stratified log rank test were used to compare actuarial survival rates. Cox proportion hazard model was applied to analyze the outcomes predictors. RESULTS: The total catheter-indwelling-day was 116,603 days in general for this cohort. The Groshong catheters (569 +/- 386.1 days) had longer (P < 0.001) mean catheter-indwelling-day than did Deltec catheters (239 +/- 235.6 days). But the per 1,000 catheter day infection (Deltec 0.18, Groshong 0.16), thrombosis (Deltec 0.07, Groshong 0.06), and surgical complication rates (Deltec 0.07, Groshong 0.02) were equivalent (P > 0.05) between two groups. Patients with leukemia were at higher risk (odds ratio 13.4, P = 0.009) to develop adverse events. However, two types of catheters had similar actuarial survival rates at end of follow up (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found infection, thrombosis occlusion, surgical complication, and actuarial device survival rates were similar between Deltec and Groshong groups. Hematogenous malignancy was a risk factor for catheter failure.