ArticleTranslational cancer research2025
Comparison of chemoport and Hickman central venous catheters in patients with hematological cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most patients with advanced malignancies require chemotherapy as a fundamental component of treatment. A durable venous access device is essential to facilitate the repeated administration of chemotherapeutic agents. However, there is relatively limited research on the selection of optimal access methods. No single access method has shown clear superiority, leading to varying preferences for different central venous access devices. Therefore, we aimed to compare the chemoport and Hickman central venous catheters (CVCs) as representative devices used in patients with hematological cancer. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 653 patients with hematological cancers among 2,113 patients with advanced cancer who underwent CVC insertion at the Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2022. Results: In total, 280 patients underwent chemoport insertion, and 373 patients underwent Hickman catheter insertion. The mean maintenance duration of the chemoport group was longer than that of the Hickman group (366.30±367.48 Conclusions: For immunocompromised patients with hematological malignancies, chemoport usage may reduce the occurrence of infections, ensuring the long-term maintenance of vascular access. Furthermore, the average reinsertion rate of both groups was confirmed to be more than 1. Therefore, performing the stem cell transplantation procedure using Hickman CVC and then changing to chemoport for subsequent chemotherapy can minimize the infection risk and safely preserve long-term vascular access. Additionally, the overall complication rate can be reduced through accurate CVC insertion methods using vascular imaging and routine management by medical professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.