Clinical trial · Interventional
Vascular Access in Cancer Patients - PICC vs PORT in a Randomized Controlled Trial.
NCT01971021CI-TRIAL-00031445completedN/AClinicalTrials.gov clinicaltrialsProvenance
- Source
- ClinicalTrials.gov
- Retrieved
- Sep 8, 2026
- Layer
- normalized (units and labels harmonized; values unchanged)
- Run
- ING-CLINICALTRIALS-20260908-000001
Summary
Brief summary (as posted)
As of today there is very limited scientific knowledge in whicj of the two vascular access devices (PICC-line or venous ports) that offers the lowest complicationrates in cancerpatients. The study group wants to clearify this unsolved matter by comparing the two systems. Our primary endpoint is the presens of catheter related venous thrombosis. We are also looking at all catheter related complications and patient satisfaction.
Conditions
Conditions (1)
Free-text conditions as registered, with the CancerIndex entity they were reconciled to and the match type.
| Condition (as posted) | Mapped entity | Match | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus of Study | — | UNRESOLVED | — |
Interventions
Interventions (1)
| Intervention | Type | Mapped drug | Match |
|---|---|---|---|
| PICC or subcutaneous venous port | Device | — | UNRESOLVED |
Design
Arms and outcomes
Arms (2)
- type
- ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
- label
- PICC-line
- description
- PICC line insertion.
- interventionNames
- Device: PICC or subcutaneous venous port
- type
- ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
- label
- PORT
- description
- Subcutaneous venous port insertion
- interventionNames
- Device: PICC or subcutaneous venous port
Primary outcomes (1)
- measure
- The occurence of catheter related venous thrombosis
- timeFrame
- Upon clinical suspiscion during the one the patient i enrolled in the study
Eligibility
Eligibility (as posted)
- Sex
- All
- Minimum age
- 18 Years
- Maximum age
- 120 Years
Show eligibility criteria text
Inclusion Criteria: * cancer treatment with need for central venous access * Age \>18 yrs * Suspected survival \> 4 weeks * Need of central venous access \>4 weeks Exclusion Criteria: * Ongoing uncontrolled systemic infection * Prescence of significant thrombosis/stenosis in arm or central veins * Unability to communicate * Probable upcoming need for dialysis fistula
References
Publications (3)
- DERIVEDUtas A, Seifert S, Taxbro K. 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. 2025 Feb 4;13:100377. doi: 10.1016/j.bjao.2025.100377. eCollection 2025 Mar. PMID 39991709
- DERIVEDTaxbro K, Hammarskjold F, Juhlin D, Hagman H, Bernfort L, Berg S. Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Mar;64(3):385-393. doi: 10.1111/aas.13505. Epub 2019 Nov 27. PMID 31721153
- DERIVEDTaxbro K, Hammarskjold F, Thelin B, Lewin F, Hagman H, Hanberger H, Berg S. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;122(6):734-741. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038. Epub 2019 Apr 17. PMID 31005243