Totally implantable venous access devices: retrospective analysis of different insertion techniques and predictors of complications in 796 devices implanted in a single institution

BMC Surgery

Muzio Meroni¹  Carlo Castoro³  Sandra Cappellato¹  Connie Celentano¹  Rita Alfieri³  Valentina Manfredi¹  Matteo Cagol³  Bogdan Filip²  Angelo Ciccarese¹  Marco Scarpa³  Elisa Granziera¹ 

[1] Anestesiology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy;Department of Surgery, Iasi University Hospital, Iasi, Romania;Surgical Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV-IRCCS), Padova, Italy

关键词: Chemotherapy;    US guided;    Totally implantable venous access device;   

Others  :  866845
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2482-14-27

 received in 2013-09-10, accepted in 2014-04-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of totally implanted vascular devices (TIVAD) using different techniques of insertion.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study using a prospective collected database of 796 consecutive oncological patients in which TIVADs were inserted. We focused on early and late complications following different insertion techniques (surgical cutdown, blind and ultrasound guided percutaneous) according to different techniques.

Results

Ultrasound guided technique was used in 646 cases, cephalic vein cutdown in 102 patients and percutaneous blind technique in 48 patients. The overall complication rate on insertion was 7.2% (57 of 796 cases). Early complications were less frequent using the ultrasound guided technique: arterial puncture (p = 0.009), technical failure (p = 0.009), access site change after first attempt (p = 0.002); pneumothorax occurred in 4 cases, all using the blind percutaneus technique. Late complications occurred in 49 cases (6.1%) which required TIVAD removal in 43 cases and included: sepsis (29 cases), thrombosis (3 cases), dislocation (7 cases), skin dehiscence (3 cases), and severe pain (1 case).

Conclusion

Ultrasound guided technique is the safest option for TIVAD insertion, with the lowest rates of immediate complications.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Granziera et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ahmad Z, Mohamed K, Deborah M, Nadim El M, Ali S, Jamal H, Gabriele M, Walid F: Update on totally implantable venous access devices. Surg Oncol 2012, 21:207-215.
• [2]Conessa C, Talfer S, Herve S, Chollet O, Poncet JL: Cephalic vein access for implantable venous access devices. Tech long-term follow-up. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2002, 123:143-148.
• [3]Trerotola SO, Kuhn-Fulton J, Johnson MS, Shah H, Ambrosius WT, Kneebone PH: Tunneled infusion catheters: increased incidence of symptomatic venous thrombosis after subclavian versus internal jugular venous access. Radiology 2000, 217:89-93.
• [4]Araújo 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(2):222-226.
• [5]Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW: Implantable venous access system: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port system. World J Surg 1998, 22:12-16.
• [6]Di Carlo I, Cordio S, La Gresa 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.
• [7]Biffi R, De Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Arnaldi P, Goldhirsch A, Rotmensz N, Robertson C, Bellomi M, Andreoni B: A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer 2001, 92:1204-1212.
• [8]Ruesch S, Walder B, Tramer MR: Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian accessea systematic review. Crit Care Med 2002, 30:454-460.
• [9]Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T: Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 2002, 3:684-693.
• [10]Schulmeister L: Management of non-infectious central venous access device complications. Semin Oncol Nurs 2010, 26:132-141.
• [11]Jordan K, Behlendorf T, Surov A, Kegel T, Maher G, Wolf HH: Venous access ports: frequency and management of complications in oncology patients. Onkologie 2008, 31:404-410.
• [12]Galloway S, Bodenham A: Long-term central venous access. Br J Anaesth 2004, 92:722-734.
• [13]Heimbach DM, Ivey TD: Technique for placement of a permanent home hyperalimentation catheter. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1976, 143(4):634-636.
• [14]Pittiruti M, Malerba M, Carriero C, Tazza L, Gui D: Which is the easiest and safest technique for central venous access? A retrospective survey of more than 5,400 cases. J Vasc Access 2000, 1(3):100-107.
• [15]Huisman-de Waal G, Versleijen M, van Achterberg T, Jansen JB, Sauerwein H, Schoonhoven L, Wanten G: Psychosocial complaints are associated with venous access–device related complications in patients on home parenteral nutrition. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2011, 35(5):588-595.
• [16]Narducci F, Jean-Laurent M, Boulanger L, El Bedoui S, Mallet Y, Houpeau JL, Hamdani A, Penel N, Fournier C: Totally implantable venous access port systems and risk factors for complications: A one-year prospective study in a cancer centre. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011, 37:913-918.
• [17]Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS, Wang WK, Kao CL, Lu MS, Wang CS: Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 2009, 15(37):4709-4714.
• [18]Schwarz RE, Groeger J, Coit DG: Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis. Cancer 1997, 79:1635-1650.
• [19]Innami Y, Oyaizu T, Ouchi T, Umemura N, Koitabashi T: Life-threatening hemothorax resulting from right brachiocephalic vein perforation during right internal jugular vein catheterization. J Anesth 2009, 23(1):135-138. doi:10.1007/s00540-008-0696-1
• [20]Vesely TM: Air embolism during insertion of central venous catheters. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2001, 12(11):1291-1295.
• [21]Collier PE, Goodman GB: Cardiac tamponade caused by central venous catheter perforation of the heart: a preventable complication. J Am Coll Surg 1995, 181(5):459-463.
• [22]Porzionato A, Montisci M, Manani G: Brachial plexus injury following subclavian vein catheterization: a case report. J Clin Anesth 2003, 15(8):582-586.
• [23]Lemners NWM, Gels ME, Sleijfer D, Plukker JT, van der Graaf WT, de Langen ZJ, Droste JH, Koops HS, Hoekstra HJ: Complications of venous access ports in 132 patients with disseminated testicular cancer treated with polychemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1996, 14:2916-2922.
• [24]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(6):1649-1656.
• [25]Calvert N: Hind D Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Anaesthesia 2004, 59(11):1116-1120.
• [26]Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD, Gregurich MA, Ota DM: Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 1994, 331(26):1735-1738.
• [27]Barbetakis N, Asteriou C, Kleontas A, Tsilikas C: Totally implantable central venous access ports. Analysis of 700 cases. J Surg Oncol 2011, 104(6):654-656.
• [28]Caers J, Fontaine C, Vinh-Hung V, De Mey J, Ponnet G, Oost C, Lamote J, De Greve J, Van Camp B, Lacor P: Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer 2005, 13(5):325-331. Epub 2004 Nov 5