Image and intracavitary electrocardiogram-guided arm port placement in colorectal cancer: A retrospective comparative study

Table 3 Comparison of catheter adjustment and radiation exposure between groups, n (%)

Parameter	Experimental group (n = 103)	Control group (n = 113)	Statistics	P value
Catheter adjustment
Number of adjustments (times), mean ± SD	0.27 ± 0.46	1.45 ± 1.03	t = 10.652	< 0.001
Frequency of adjustments			χ2 = 77.183	< 0.001
0 time	76 (73.8)	21 (18.6)
1 time	25 (24.3)	40 (35.4)
≥ 2 times	2 (1.9)	52 (46.0)
Reasons for adjustment	(n = 23)	(n = 170)	χ2 = 48.216	< 0.001
Inaccurate position	0 (0)	128 (75.3)
Insufficient length	15 (65.2)	25 (14.7)
Catheter kinking	8 (34.8)	17 (10.0)
X-ray exposure
X-ray exposure time (seconds), mean ± SD	5.3 ± 2.1	18.7 ± 4.5	t = 26.419	< 0.001
Number of fluoroscopies (times), mean ± SD	1.1 ± 0.3	3.5 ± 0.8	t = 29.783	< 0.001
Patients requiring only 1 fluoroscopy	93 (90.3)	0 (0)	χ2 = 168.297	< 0.001
Patients requiring ≥ 3 fluoroscopies	0 (0)	59 (52.2)	χ2 = 73.641	< 0.001
Radiation dose
Average radiation dose (μGy·m2), mean ± SD	14.8 ± 5.6	52.4 ± 12.3	t = 28.937	< 0.001
Operator scattered radiation dose (μSv/procedure), mean ± SD	1.2 ± 0.5	4.3 ± 1.2	t = 24.106	< 0.001
Subgroup analysis (radiation-sensitive population)	n = 15	n = 17	-	-
X-ray exposure time (seconds), mean ± SD	4.7 ± 1.8	19.5 ± 5.2	t = 10.342	< 0.001
Radiation dose (μGy·m2), mean ± SD	12.3 ± 4.7	54.8 ± 13.6	t = 11.579	< 0.001
Multivariate analysis	OR	95%CI	-	P value
Risk factors for multiple adjustments
Female sex	2.13	1.25-3.64	-	0.005
BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2	2.86	1.67-4.91	-	< 0.001
Traditional anatomical landmark technique	6.52	3.78-11.25	-	< 0.001
Protective factor for reduced X-ray exposure
Application of IC-ECG technique	0.12	0.05-0.28	-	< 0.001

OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; BMI: Body mass index; IC-ECG: Intracavitary electrocardiogram.