Factors Associated with Central Venous Catheterization in Cancer Patients

Jeong Yun Park; Yeon-Hwan Park

doi:10.5388/jkon.2011.11.1.1

Journal List > J Korean Oncol Nurs > v.11(1) > 1044413

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park and Park: Factors Associated with Central Venous Catheterization in Cancer Patients

Original Article

Journal of Korean Oncology Nursing

Journal of Korean Oncology Nursing 2011; 11(1): 1-8.

Published online: 14 March 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5388/jkon.2011.11.1.1

Factors Associated with Central Venous Catheterization in Cancer Patients

Jeong Yun Park¹, Yeon-Hwan Park²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Clinical Nursing, University of Ulsan, Seoul, Korea.

²Associate Professor, College of Nursing, Research Institute of Nursing Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Park, Yeon-Hwan. College of Nursing, Seoul National University, 101 Daehang-no, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-799, Korea. Tel: 82-2-740-8846, Fax: 82-2-765-4103, hanipyh@snu.ac.kr

Received 20 September 2010 Accepted 12 January 2011

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify the types of venous access devices (VAD) for cancer patients and investigate the factors related to the insertions of central venous catheter (CVC) in cancer patients.

Methods

The subjects were 379 cancer patients. A retrospective review of all patients who were discharged from a cancer unit from November 1st to 21st in 2008 was done using a structured questionnaire.

Results

A total of 82 CVC (21.6%) was inserted among 379 patients for administering anticancer therapy. There were statistically significant differences in age, length of stay (LOS), cumulative LOS, medical department, history of CVC insertion, cancer category, and albumin level between patients using peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters and CVC. In addition, factors influencing the use of CVC were LOS (odds ratio [OR]=0.286, confidence interval [CI]=1.043-1.124), history of CVC insertion (OR=3.920, CI=0.128-0.637), albumin level (OR=1.010, CI=1.879-8.179), cumulative LOS (OR=1.010, CI=1.001-1.018), and hematological diseases (OR=4.863, CI=2.162-10.925).

Conclusion

We found that central venous catheterization for anticancer therapy was minimal even though CVC was safe and effective device for IV access. It is necessary to develop a strategy to use VADs efficiently and timely for cancer patients.

Keywords: Central venous catheterization, Hospitalization, Neoplasms

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Venous access devices (VADs) for cancer patients

CVC, Central Venous Catheter.

Table 2

Comparison of general characteristics between peripheral catheter group and central venous catheter group

^*Mean (SD).

Table 3

Comparison of general characteristics between peripheral catheter group and central venous catheter group

ICD code: International Classification of Disease code.

Cumulative length of stay: Sum of hospital days including multiple admissions.

^*Mean (SD); ^**Fisher'exact test.

Table 4

Comparison of nutritional status between peripheral catheter group and central venous catheter group

Table 5

Predictors of central venous catheter Insertion by using stepwise logistic regression

Cumulative length of stay: Sum of hospital days including multiple admissions.

^*Hosmer and Lemeshow test: χ² = 5.771, df = 8, p = .673.

^*Model summary: Nagelkerke R² = .568, χ² = 173.898, df = 5, p = .000.

^*Correct classification (%): 89.7.

CI = confidence interval.

References

1. Horattas MC, Trupiano J, Hopkins S, Pasini D, Martino C, Murty A. Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: catheter selection and cost savings. Am J Infect Control. 2001. 29:32–40.

2. Halderman F. Selecting a vascular access device. Nursing. 2000. 30:59–61.

3. Freytes CO. Progress in central venous access? Support Care Cancer. 2003. 11:135–136.

4. Freytes CO. Vascular access problems revisited: the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) experience. Support Care Cancer. 1998. 6:13–19.

5. Gallieni M, Pittiruti M, Biffi R. Vascular access in oncology patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008. 58:323–346.

6. Galloway M. Insertion and placement of central catheters in the oncology patient. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2010. 26:102–112.

7. Pector JC. Vascular access problems. Support Care Cancer. 1998. 6:20–22.

8. Park SH, Song MS. A study on the occurence of intravenous-related phlebitis(Data from patients cared by the IV nurses). J Korean Acad Adult Nurs. 1997. 9:33–43.

9. Raaf JH. Administration of chemotherapeutic agents. Techniques and controversies. Support Care Cancer. 1994. 2:335–346.

10. Freytes CO. Indications and complications of intravenous devices for chemotherapy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2000. 12:303–307.

11. Oncology Nurse Society. Access device guidelines: recommendation for nursing practice and education. 1996. Pittsburgh, PA: Oncology Nurse Society.

12. Camp-Sorrell D. State of the science of oncology vascular access devices. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2010. 26:80–87.

13. Wickham RS. Advances in venous access devices and nursing management strategies. Nurs Clin North Am. 1990. 25:345–364.

14. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P, Kibbler C, et al. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol. 2007. 29:261–278.

15. Winslow MN, Trammell L, Camp-Sorrell D. Selection of vascular access devices and nursing care. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1995. 11:167–173.

16. Zganjer M, Cizmic A, Butkovic D, Matolic M, Karaman-Ilic M, Stepan J. Central venous catheters for chemotherapy of solid tumors-our results in the last 5 years. Coll Antropol. 2008. 32:767–770.

17. Park JY, Baek MK, Kwon HL, Kim SR, Yang SJ, Park KO. A clinical nurse specialist-led PICC(Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) program in an affiliated hospital. Clin Nurs Res. 2005. 10:103–114.

18. Oakley C, Wright E, Ream E. The experiences of patients and nurses with a nurse-led peripherally inserted central venous catheter line service. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2000. 4:207–218.

19. Viot M. Intravenous access: related problems in oncology. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000. 16:165–168.

20. Korean Hospital Association. The health insurance medical treatment benefits. 2010. Seoul: Korean Hospital Association.

21. Goossens GA, Vrebos M, Stas M, De Wever I, Frederickx L. Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports? J Infus Nurs. 2005. 28:61–67.

22. Shukla NK, Das DK, Deo SV, Raina V. An analysis of long-term venous access catheters in cancer patients: experience from a tertiary care centre in India. J Postgrad Med. 2002. 48:21–24.

23. Jacobson AF, Winslow EH. Variables influencing intravenous catheter insertion difficulty and failure: an analysis of 339 intravenous catheter insertions. Heart Lung. 2005. 34:345–359.

24. Kaufman JA, Kazanjian SA, Rivitz SM, Geller SC, Waltman AC. Long-term central venous catheterization in patients with limited access. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996. 167:1327–1333.

25. The Free Encylopedia. Wikipedia. accessed on 13 January 2011. Available at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-9_codes_140-239:_Neoplasms.

26. Nutrition Team. Patient diet prescription guideline. 2006. Seoul: Asan Medical Center.

27. Marcy PY. Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol. 2008. 18:2333–2344.

28. Webster J, Morris HL, Robinson K, Sanderson U. Development and validation of a vein assessment tool(VAT). Aust J Adv Nurs. 2007. 24:5–7.

TOOLS

Similar articles