Power Injectable Versus a Non-Power Injectable, Upper Arm, TIVAD for Chemotherapy
Assessment of a Power Injectable vs. a Non-Power Injectable, Upper Arm, Totally Implanted Venous Access Devices for Chemotherapy
1 other identifier
interventional
209
1 country
1
Brief Summary
Patients with cancer often require intravenous chemotherapy for long periods of time. Ensuring that these patients have safe and reliable access to the veins for chemotherapy is challenging, and sometimes a medical device is required to administer the chemotherapy into the veins. A totally implanted venous access device, or port, is implanted under the skin of the arm and is attached to a small plastic catheter that enters into the veins. This device can be punctured with a needle when needed for treatment or testing. Some types of these vein ports can rapidly inject fluids (power injection), and can be used for follow-up imaging studies, such as computed tomography, that are required to follow cancer treatment effectiveness. There are no publications of randomized patients discussing the impact of power injection upon TIVAD complications and device longevity for arm implantation. The investigators propose to compare the effectiveness of power injectable against non-power injectable ports to determine if they have different clinical performance and complications. Our results will impact the care provided to cancer patients.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable
Started Sep 2013
Typical duration for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
September 1, 2013
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 30, 2014
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
November 4, 2014
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
July 1, 2016
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
July 1, 2016
CompletedOctober 26, 2016
October 1, 2016
2.8 years
October 30, 2014
October 24, 2016
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Device Failure (Failure secondary to occlusion, leakage, catheter fracture, wound dehiscence)
Failure secondary to occlusion, leakage, catheter fracture, wound dehiscence
2 years after insertion
Secondary Outcomes (3)
Venous Thrombosis
2 years after implantation
Quality of Life Related to Port
2 years after implantation
Infection
2 years after implantation
Study Arms (2)
Power Injectable Port
EXPERIMENTALThe subjects randomized to this group will receive the newer, power injectable port.
Non-Power Injectable Port
ACTIVE COMPARATORThe subjects randomized to this group will receive the older, non-power injectable port.
Interventions
The subjects will all receive power injectable port.
The subjects will all receive non-power injectable port.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Consecutive patients breast cancer requiring intravenous chemotherapy, referred from our local Cancer Agency for arm TIVAD, will be included.
You may not qualify if:
- Those under the age of 16 years;
- Those with uncorrectable blood clotting disorder;
- Pregnant women, as they will not be candidates for chemotherapy;
- Any person with an active infection or immunocompromised state;
- Those on oral or intravenous antibiotics on the day of TIVAD implantation.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Medical Imaging, Royal University Hospital, 103 Hospital Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 0W8, Canada
Related Publications (3)
Goossens GA, Stas M, Jerome M, Moons P. Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2011 Jul;19(7):883-98. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1171-3. Epub 2011 May 10.
PMID: 21556721BACKGROUNDMarcy PY, Chamorey E, Amoretti N, Benezery K, Bensadoun RJ, Bozec A, Poissonnet G, Dassonville O, Rame M, Italiano A, Peyrade F, Brenac F, Gallard JC. A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Nov;34(11):1262-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.09.011. Epub 2007 Nov 5.
PMID: 17981432BACKGROUNDGoltz JP, Machann W, Noack C, Hahn D, Kickuth R. Feasibility of power contrast injections and bolus triggering during CT scans in oncologic patients with totally implantable venous access ports of the forearm. Acta Radiol. 2011 Feb 1;52(1):41-7. doi: 10.1258/ar.2010.100238.
PMID: 21498324BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Brent E Burbridge, MD, FRCPC
Medical Imaging, 103 Hospital Drive, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0W8
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- M.D.
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 30, 2014
First Posted
November 4, 2014
Study Start
September 1, 2013
Primary Completion
July 1, 2016
Study Completion
July 1, 2016
Last Updated
October 26, 2016
Record last verified: 2016-10