Abstract PS9-49: Comparison of the quality of life (QOL) of patients with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)
Authors: Ahmed Shahid , Burbridge Brent , Dwernychuk Lynn , Le Ha , Asif Tehmina , Lim Hyun 
Published: February 2021

Introduction: Venous access is a crucial element in systemic therapy delivery. PICCs are usually more easily and quickly inserted. It remains unclear whether cancer patients prefer a port to a PICC. Our study aimed to assess cancer patients’ satisfaction with their venous access device and to compare the QOL of subjects with a PICC to those with a port. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, EORTC QLQ-C30 and a locally developed QOL survey, designed to assess satisfaction with venous access devices, were administered to breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer patients up to four times over a 1-year period. Mixed effects models were used controlling for other covariates to assess changes on mean scores at different time points. Results: A total of 101 patients were recruited, 50 (BC, 29) in PICC and 51 (BC, 35) in port group. Survey response rates for months 1 and 3 were, 72% and 48%, respectively. Overall, no significant differences were noted between the two groups in relation to EORTC QOL constructs. Mixed effect model showed that patients with a PICC had significantly lower pain score estimate compared to patients with a port (β= -1.98, 95% CI: -0.92 - -3.05, p&lt;0.001). Conversely, patients with a port had a psychosocial score estimate significantly higher than patients with a PICC (β= 2.18, 95% CI: 0.83 - 3.53, p=0.002). As survey time variable was not significant, there was no change in the mean pain or psychological scores for both devices at 3 months. Results for the QLC-30 survey did not reveal any statistically significant changes in mean scores for the different constructs between the surveys conducted at baseline and 3 months for the devices investigated. At 3 months 66.7% patients with a PICC vs. 33.3% with a port felt they had changed the way they dressed due to their device (OR=4.0, 95% CI:1.2-13.3, p=0.02). 88.2% patients with PICC vs.18.3% with port reported difficulties with showering, bathing or performing personal hygiene activities due to their device (OR=18.3, 95% CI: 3.5-97.1, p&lt;0.0001). 41.7% patients with a PICC vs. 12.5% with a port experienced comments from people about their device (OR=5.0, 95% CI: 1.2-21.5, p=0.02). 45.8% patients with a PICC worried that their device may become infected vs. 8.3% with a port (OR= 9.3, 95% CI: 1.8-48.7, p=0.003). No significant differences were noted between the two group regarding sports, exercise, social activities, or the degree of discomfort in between treatments. The 3-month mean satisfaction score between two groups showed no difference (25.0 ±6.6 vs 25.2 ±5.9, p=0.87). Complications rates were 38% in PICC vs. 41% with a port (p&gt;0.24). Overall, 8% patients with a PICC vs. 12% with a port developed DVT (p=NS). Conclusions: Although patients with a port experience more pain, it had a smaller negative impact on psychosocial scores than the PICC. No significant difference in device satisfaction or complications rates was observed between the two devices.

Citation Format: Shahid Ahmed, Brent Burbridge, Lynn Dwernychuk, Ha Le, Tehmina Asif, Hyun Lim. Comparison of the quality of life (QOL) of patients with an arm vein port (TIVAD) versus a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS9-49.