Totally implanted vascular access devices-related infections in oncology and hematology: A retrospective single-center study

Abstract

Introduction:

The use totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) has significantly improved the quality of care and comfort of life of oncology patients.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the incidence and etiology of infections in patients with TIVAD, with a distinction between oncology and hematology patients. In addition, the influence of age, tumour type, presence of neutropenia and palliative status on the prevalence of specific pathogens was assessed.

Materials and methods:

The medical records of patients hospitalized in the oncology and haematology departments of the municipal hospital in Warsaw between 2022 and 2023 were retrospectively analysed. IBM SPSS Statistics 29 software was used for data analysis. Infection characteristics, age of patients, type of bacteria by type of cancer, type of bacteria versus age of patients, type of bacteria versus patient status are presented in tables.

Results:

On the Oncology ward there were 24 infections in 21 patients, while on the haematology ward there were 43 infections in 28 patients. On the Oncology ward, TIVAD infections occurred in 57.14% of patients with gastrointestinal cancer, while on the Haematology ward they occurred in 78.57% of patients with lymphoma. The results as infection density per inpatient TIVAD in oncology department it was 1.24 per 1000 person-days of TIVAD stay. In contrast, in the hematology department results as infection density per inpatient TIVAD it was 3.40. Gram-negative infections accounted for 80.60% (n = 54) and Gram-positive infections for 19.40% (n = 13). The distribution was similar in both wards (75.00% Gram-negative in oncology, 83.72% in haematology).

Conclusions:

Hematology patients were more likely to have TIVAD infections than oncology patients. In most studies, patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies were analysed together, despite significant clinical differences. Therefore, we decided to analyze these two groups of patients separately.