Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis

Background The implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) were compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) as the administration of chemotherapy regarding different clinical effects and adverse effects. Which is better debatable. Hence, current study was conducted to assess safety efficacy these two optimal strategies. Methods following electronic databases searched: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library updated in May 2023. Studies on differences complication rates patients cancer using either PICC or PORT for included. Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software used statistical analysis. Results A total 22 articles retrieved. results suggested that has a superior profile, lower incidences overall (OR=2.72, 95% CI=1.56–4.72 P=0.0004), catheter-related thrombosis (OR=2.84, CI=1.97–4.11, P<0.00001), allergic reactions (OR=6.26, CI=1.86–21.09, P=0.003) than typically expected PICC. Moreover, non-inferior group respect DVT (OR=2.00, CI=0.86–4.65, P=0.11) infection (OR=1.55, CI=0.75–3.22, P=0.24). Conclusion achieved benefits through Therefore, regarded safe effective chemotherapy. When considering economic factors some key elements, more high-quality research would help verify benefits. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identififier CRD42023421690.