Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2025

Author Spotlight: Hickman Catheter Use for Long-Term Vascular Access in a Preclinical Swine Model
Published on: March 31, 2023
Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation
Robert Heggie1, Nishant Jaiswal1, Elaine McCartney2
1Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Insights
Implantable chest wall ports (PORT) are safer and more cost-effective for long-term cancer therapy than Hickman-type devices (HICK) or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). PORT reduces complications and unplanned removals, offering value within the National Health Service.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Medical Devices
- Health Economics
Background:
- Long-term anticancer therapy often requires venous access devices like Hickman-type devices (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), or implantable chest wall ports (PORT).
- While PORT shows improved safety and patient satisfaction, its cost-effectiveness compared to HICK and PICC requires further evaluation.
- Traditional cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metrics may not fully capture the benefits of medical devices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice for patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy.
- To compare trade-offs between complications, infections, chemotherapy interruptions, device removals, health utilities, and costs associated with each device type.
- To conduct a value of implementation analysis for PORT services within the National Health Service.
Main Methods:
- A cost-consequence analysis was performed using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial.
- Key outcomes evaluated included complication rates, infection rates, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, and total costs.
- Value of implementation analysis was utilized to assess the cost-effectiveness of PORT services.
Main Results:
- PORT demonstrated a significantly lower overall complication rate compared to both HICK and PICC.
- PORT was associated with fewer unplanned device removals than HICK and PICC.
- Total costs for PORT were lower than HICK and comparable to PICC, with PORT likely to be considered cost-effective within the NHS.
Conclusions:
- Implantable chest wall ports (PORT) offer superior safety and cost-effectiveness compared to HICK and PICC for long-term venous access in cancer patients.
- PORT reduces complications and unplanned removals, making it a valuable option for routine clinical practice.
- Healthcare decision-makers should consider integrating PORT into the available venous access device options within the National Health Service.
Objectives:
Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice.
Methods:
This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service.
Results:
PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service.
Conclusion:
Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.
More Related Videos
09:17Use of a Central Venous Line for Fluids, Drugs and Nutrient Administration in a Mouse Model of Critical Illness
Published on: May 2, 2017
09:57A Protocol to Set Up Needle-Free Connector with Positive Displacement on Central Venous Catheter in Intensive Care Unit
Published on: July 13, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Parentral Nutrition: Centeral and Peripheral Parental Nutrition
PN can be administered through two primary routes:
1. Central Parenteral Nutrition (CPN):
CPN involves delivering a high concentration of nutrients through a large vein. This is typically achieved using a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) or,...
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications
Hemodialysis III: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
Cardiac Catheterization IV: Nursing Management