Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implanted port catheters in patients with breast cancer: a post hoc analysis of the PICCPORT randomised controlled trial
Authors' conclusion
While acknowledging the limitations of an underpowered post hoc subgroup analysis, our findings suggest that the well-established superiority of PORTs in terms of adverse events among cancer patients might not be as substantial for breast cancer patients in particular.
Study context
- Population
- Breast cancer patients requiring long-term central venous catheters for cancer treatment
- Participants
- 78 vs 80
- Comparison
- PICC vs PORT
- PICCn = 78
- PORTn = 80reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- Thrombotic
- Occlusive
- Infectious
- Mechanical complications
Methodological detailspost hoc analysis, multicentre
- Post hoc analysis
- Multicentre
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
- No statistically significant difference in incidence of complications between PICC and PORT
Secondary outcomes
Insertion pain (patient satisfaction)
- PICC insertion less painful than PORT insertion; both groups reported low pain
Original publication
Peripherally inserted central catheters versus implanted port catheters in patients with breast cancer: a post hoc analysis of the PICCPORT randomised controlled trial. BJA Open. Published 4 February 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →