Usta Öznur YEŞİLBALKAN, Ayfer KARADAKOVAN, Serpil KIR, Rüçhan USLU

Knowledge and attitudes of Turkish cancer patients regarding the implantable port catheter

AMAÇ Bu çalışmada, kanserli hastaların implante port katetere ilişkin bilgi ve davranışları değerlendirildi.GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM Bu tanımlayıcı çalışma İzmir'de büyük bir üniversite hastanesinde yapıldı. Örneklem grubunu port kateter yoluyla tedavi gören 96 kanser hastası oluşturdu. Veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen soru formu ile toplandı ve tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve Pearson korelasyon katsayısı kullanılarak analiz edildi.BULGULAR Araştırmaya katılan 96 kanserli hastanın %56.3'ü kadın, %57.3'ü 39 ve 49 yaş grupları arasında, %29.2'si ilk öğretim mezunu, %83.3'ü çalışmayan ve gastrointestinal sistem kanserliydi. Bu çalışmada, port kateter hastalara uzun süreli intravenöz tedavi amacıyla takıldı. Port anketine ilişkin doğru cevap oranı ortalaması %54.1'di (±34.42). Hastaların bilgileri geçmiş özellikleriyle analiz edildiğinde, hastaların port katetere ilişkin bilgileri sadece kateterin yerleştirilme zamanı ile pozitif olarak ilişkiliydi.SONUÇ Bu çalışma kanserli hastaların port kateter hakkındaki bilgilerinin yetersiz olduğunu gösterdi. Biz port sistemin kullanımına ilişkin protokollerin geliştirilmesini, broşür gibi yazılı materyallerin hastaların gereksinimlerine ve tadavi planına göre hazırlanmasını ve hastalara verilmesini öneriyoruz. Hastalara sözel bilgilendirmenin yanı sıra broşür verilmelidir.

Onkoloji hastalarının implante port kateter hakkındaki bilgileri ve davranışları

OBJECTIVES The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of cancer patients regarding the implantable port catheter.METHODS This descriptive study was carried out at a large university hospital in İzmir. The convenience sample consisted of 96 cancer patients who were administered chemotherapy via a port catheter. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation test.RESULTS Of the 96 cancer patients who participated in the study, 56.3% were female, 57.3% were 39-59 years of age, 29.2% had completed primary school education, 83.3% were unemployed, and 43.7% had a gastrointestinal system cancer. In this study, the port catheter was implanted due to long-term continuous intravenous therapy. The correct response rate for the port questionnaire, on average, was 54.1% (±34.42). When the knowledge scores were analyzed according to patients' background characteristics, the only significant relationship determined was between knowledge scores and the time of catheter placement.CONCLUSION This study revealed that cancer patients have insufficient knowledge about the port catheter. We suggest that a protocol for use of the port system should be developed, and written material, such as in brochure form, should be prepared according to the patient's treatment plan. The brochure should be provided to patients in addition to verbal information regarding the port catheter.

PDF

___

1) Karamanoglu A, Yumuk PF, Gumus M, Ekenel M, Aliustaoglu M, Selimen D, et al. Port needles: do they need to be removed as frequently in infusional chemotherapy? J Infus Nurs 2003;26(4):239-42.
2) Viale PH. Complications associated with implantable vascular access devices in the patient with cancer. J Infus Nurs 2003;26(2):97-102.
3) Carlo JT, Lamont JP, McCarty TM, Livingston S, Kuhn JA. A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. Am J Surg 2004;188(6):722-7.
4) Yeşilbalkan ÖU. Technologic device which are used frequently in oncology patients: Implanted port catheter. J Cumhuriyet Univ Sch Nurs 2005;9(2):49-54.
5) Kuo YS, Schwartz B, Santiago J, Anderson PS, Fields AL, Goldberg GL. How often should a port-A-cath be flushed? Cancer Invest 2005;23(7):582-5.
6) Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ. Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: A randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 1999;17(4):1267.
7) Dillon PA, Foglia RP. Complications associated with an implantable vascular access device. J Pediatr Surg 2006;41(9):1582-7.
8) Ebru K, Fuat G. Retrospective evaluation of our vascular port implantations: Intern J Hematology and Oncol 2005;4(15):195-8.
9) Chang L, Tsai JS, Huang SJ, Shih CC. Evaluation of infectious complications of the implantable venous access system in a general oncologic population. Am J Infect Control 2003;31(1):34-9.
10) Inaba Y, Yamaura H, Sato Y, Najima M, Shimamoto H, Nishiofuku H, et al. Central venous access port-related complications in outpatient chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007;37(12):951-4.
11) Johansson E, Engervall P, Björvell H, Hast R, Björkholm M. Patients' perceptions of having a central venous catheter or a totally implantable subcutaneous port system-results from a randomised study in acute leukaemia. Support Care Cancer 2009;17(2):137-43.
12) Kreis H, Loehberg CR, Lux MP, Ackermann S, Lang W, Beckmann MW, et al. Patients' attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007;33(1):39-43.
13) Goossens GA, Vrebos M, Stas M, De Wever I, Frederickx L. Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports? J Infus Nurs 2005;28(1):61-7.
14) Cheng CC, Tsai TN, Yang CC, Han CL. Percutaneous retrieval of dislodged totally implantable central venous access system in 92 cases: experience in a single hospital. Eur J Radiol 2009;69(2):346-50.
15) Wickham RS. Advances in venous access devices and nursing management strategies. In: Miaskowski C, editor. The Nursing Clinics of North America Advances in Oncology Nursing. Philadephia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1990. p. 345 61.
16) Gutierrez DC, Eichacker PQ. Central venous devices for cancer patients. In: Abraham J, Allegra CJ, editors. Handbook of Clinical Oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 539-47.
17) http://www.smh.com/sections/servicesprocedures/ medlib/nursing/Procedures/Pediatric/ped08_AccessImplantedVAD_ 091907.pdf. (Access date: 10.08.2006).
18) http://www.hmpvascular.com/pages/pdf/Ports_IFU. pdf. (Access date: 09.03.2006).
19) Guidelines for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections (August 9, 2002/51, RR10; 1-26) (Access date: 10.05.2007).