Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion

Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Yeon Ryu, Hyuk Jae Jung, Sang Su Lee, Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Yeon Ryu, Hyuk Jae Jung, Sang Su Lee

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to describe the procedure of totally implantable central venous port system (TICVPS) insertion performed at our center and investigate associated complications. The study retrospectively evaluated 827 patients who underwent a single-type TICVPS insertion from January 2013 to July 2015. The length of the procedure, long-term device function, angle (chamber-to-tip) and complications of TICVPS, including infection, skin erosion, occlusion, malposition and thrombosis, were analyzed from the patients' medical records. A total of 843 TICVPS insertions were performed in 827 patients. The TICVPS implantation was successful in all cases (100%). A total of 34 cases (4.0%) with complications were recorded. Complications at the chamber insertion site occurred in 11 patients (1.3%), including 5 infection (0.6%) and 6 erosion cases (0.7%). All patients with chamber insertion site infection were treated by administration of antibiotics and dressing. Of the patients in which chamber insertion site erosion occurred, 2 were subjected to TICVPS removal and reinsertion and 4 were treated with debridement, irrigation and resuture. The most common type of complication was catheter-associated (2.3%; n=19). Among these cases, 7 had catheter-associated infection (0.8%), 8 had catheter migration (1.0%) confirmed by chest radiography, 4 had catheter-associated thrombosis (0.5%) and 2 had chamber malposition (0.3%). The present retrospective study on TICVPS, which used a relatively large cohort, demonstrated a low complication rate (4.0%) compared with that reported in previous studies (5-20%). A well-designed procedure, experienced vascular surgeons, an aseptic operating room environment, ultrasound-guided puncture, a wide angle (chamber-to-tip) and the use of fluoroscopy with contrast agent may reduce the complication rate of TICVPS insertion.

Keywords: central; implantable; system; totally; venous port.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Caterer insertion. The insertion of the catheter tip using fluoroscopy. The blue arrow demonstrated the inspection of the caterer tip position with the injection of a small amount of contrast media.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Intraoperative fluoroscopy. The catheter angle was measured using fluoroscopy with a mobile C-arm.

References

    1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW, Liepman M, Doan K, Cozzi E. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery. 1982;92:706–712.
    1. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW. Implantable vascular access systems: Experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg. 1998;22:12–16. doi: 10.1007/s002689900342.
    1. Schenck M, Jäger T. What is practically important when carrying out a chemotherapy? Urologe A. 2006;45:578–579. 572, 574–576. (In German)
    1. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH. A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973;136:602–606.
    1. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, Sanders JE, Stewart P, Thomas ED. A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1979;148:871–875.
    1. Torramadé JR, Cienfuegos JA, Hernández JL, Pardo F, Benito C, González J, Balén E, de Villa V. The complications of central venous access systems: A study of 218 patients. Eur J Surg. 1993;159:323–327.
    1. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Mauri S, Goldhirsch A, Nolè F, Andreoni B. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:767–773. doi: 10.1023/A:1008392423469.
    1. Funaki B, Zaleski GX. Re: Long-term follow-up of upper extremity implanted venous access devices in oncology patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:1281. doi: 10.1016/S1051-0443(99)70232-0.
    1. Teichgräber UK, Gebauer B, Benter T, Wagner J. Long-term central venous lines and their complications. Rofo. 2004;176:944–952. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-813258.
    1. Yeste S, ánchez L, Galbis Caravajal JM, Fuster Diana CA, Moledo Eiras E. Protocol for the implantation of a venous access device (Port-A-Cath System). The complications and solutions found in 560 cases. Clin Transl Oncol. 2006;8:735–741. doi: 10.1007/s12094-006-0120-y.
    1. Yaacob Y, Nguyen DV, Mohamed Z, Ralib AR, Zakaria R, Muda S. Image-guided chemoport insertion by interventional radiologists: A single-center experience on periprocedural complications. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2013;23:121–125. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.116543.
    1. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1123–1133. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra011883.
    1. Beheshti MV. A concise history of central venous access. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;14:184–185. doi: 10.1053/j.tvir.2011.05.002.
    1. Dede D, Akmangit I, Yildirim ZN, Sanverdi E, Sayin B. Ultrasonography and fluoroscopy-guided insertion of chest ports. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1340–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.12.001.
    1. Di Carlo I, Pulvirenti E, Mannino M, Toro A. Increased use of percutaneous technique for totally implantable venous access devices. Is it real progress? A 27-year comprehensive review on early complications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1649–1656. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1005-4.
    1. Sakamoto N, Arai Y, Takeuchi Y, Takahashi M, Tsurusaki M, Sugimuta K. Ultrasound-guided radiological placement of central venous port via the subclavian vein: A retrospective analysis of 500 cases at a single institute. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33:989–994. doi: 10.1007/s00270-010-9841-y.
    1. Teichgräber UK, Kausche S, Nagel SN, Gebauer B. Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1224–1232. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-2045-7.
    1. Ahn SJ, Kim HC, Chung JW, An SB, Yin YH, Jae HJ, Park JH. Ultrasound and fluoroscopy-guided placement of central venous ports via internal jugular vein: Retrospective analysis of 1254 port implantations at a single center. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13:314–323. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2012.13.3.314.
    1. Goltz JP, Janssen H, Petritsch B, Kickuth R. Femoral placement of totally implantable venous power ports as an alternative implantation site for patients with central vein occlusions. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22:383–387. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1984-3.
    1. Kim HJ, Yun J, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Kim SH, Lee SC, Bae SB, Kim CK, Lee NS, Lee KT, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: Prospective observational study. J Korean Med Sci. 2010;25:1748–1753. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2010.25.12.1748.
    1. Kumar AH, Srinivasan NM, Thakkar JM, Mathew S. A prospective observational study of the outcome of central venous catheterization in 100 patients. Anesth Essays Res. 2013;7:71–75. doi: 10.4103/0259-1162.114000.
    1. Babu KG, Suresh Babu MC, Lokanatha D, Bhat GR. Outcomes, cost comparison, and patient satisfaction during long-term central venous access in cancer patients: Experience from a Tertiary Care Cancer Institute in South India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016;37:232–238. doi: 10.4103/0971-5851.195732.
    1. Son JT, Min SY, Kim JI, Choi PW, Heo TG, Lee MS, Kim CN, Kim HY, Yi SY, Lee HR, Roh YN. Thrombolytic therapy using urokinase for management of central venous catheter thrombosis. Vasc Specialist Int. 2014;30:144–150. doi: 10.5758/vsi.2014.30.4.144.
    1. Schenck M, Schneider T, Rubben H, Eisenhardt A. Central venous port implantations via the cephalic vein applying an intravasal electrographic control of the catheter tip position: A single-center experience of 316 cases. World J Urol. 2012;30:399–404. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0752-6.
    1. Bishop L, Dougherty L, Bodenham A, Mansi J, Crowe P, Kibbler C, Shannon M, Treleaven J. Guidelines on the insertion and management of central venous access devices in adults. Int J Lab Hematol. 2007;29:261–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-553X.2007.00931.x.
    1. Brothers TE, Von Moll LK, Niederhuber JE, Roberts JA, Walker-Andrews S, Ensminger WD. Experience with subcutaneous infusion ports in three hundred patients. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988;166:295–301.
    1. Whitman ED. Complications associated with the use of central venous access devices. Curr Probl Surg. 1996;33:309–378. doi: 10.1016/S0011-3840(96)80008-6.
    1. Harish K. Chemoport-skin erosion: Our experience. Int J Angiol. 2014;23:215–216. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1353734.
    1. Almhanna K, Pelley RJ, Thomas Budd G, Davidson J, Moore HC. Subcutaneous implantable venous access device erosion through the skin in patients treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy: A case series. Anticancer Drugs. 2008;19:217–219. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e3282f2c063.
    1. Lee AY. Cancer and thromboembolic disease: Pathogenic mechanisms. Cancer Treat Rev. 2002;28:137–140. doi: 10.1016/S0305-7372(02)00044-0.
    1. Chelmow D, Rodriguez EJ, Sabatini MM. Suture closure of subcutaneous fat and wound disruption after cesarean delivery: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:974–980. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000124807.76451.47.
    1. Hertault A, Sobocinski J, Spear R, Azzaoui R, Delloye M, Fabre D, Haulon S. What should we expect from the hybrid room? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2017;58:264–269.
    1. Frank DA, Meuse J, Hirsch D, Ibrahim JG, van den Abbeele AD. The treatment and outcome of cancer patients with thromboses on central venous catheters. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2000;10:271–275. doi: 10.1023/A:1026503526188.
    1. Verso M, Agnelli G. Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3665–3675. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.008.
    1. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, et al. Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: A randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:935–940. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn701.
    1. Saber W, Moua T, Williams EC, Verso M, Agnelli G, Couban S, Young A, De Cicco M, Biffi R, van Rooden CJ, et al. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients: A patient-level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical trials and prospective studies. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9:312–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.04126.x.
    1. Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Greca G, Privitera G, Russello D, Puleo S, Latteri F. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: A retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg. 2001;136:1050–1053. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.136.9.1050.
    1. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, Dias T, Fougo JL. A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:222–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.04.003.
    1. Safdar N, Maki DG. Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection with peripherally inserted central venous catheters used in hospitalized patients. Chest. 2005;128:489–495. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.2.489.
    1. Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisani Ceretti A, Cordovana A, Pagani M, Farina G, Perrone S, Tomirotti M, Scanni A, Spina GP. Complications of subcutaneous infusion port in the general oncology population. Oncology. 1999;56:97–102. doi: 10.1159/000011947.
    1. Wolosker N, Yazbek G, Nishinari K, Malavolta LC, Munia MA, Langer M, Zerati AE. Totally implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: Experience in 500 patients. Sao Paulo Med J. 2004;122:147–151. doi: 10.1590/S1516-31802004000400003.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj