nach oben

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

Erschienen in:

21.06.2016 | Original Article

Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan

verfasst von: Masatoshi Shiono, Shin Takahashi, Masanobu Takahashi, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Chikashi Ishioka

Erschienen in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

We conducted a nationwide questionnaire-based survey to understand the current situation regarding central venous port implantation in order to identify the ideal procedure.

Methods

Questionnaire sheets concerning the number of implantation procedures and the incidence of complications for all procedures completed in 2012 were sent to 397 nationwide designated cancer care hospitals in Japan in June 2013. Venipuncture sites were categorized as chest, neck, upper arm, forearm, and others. Methods were categorized as landmark, cut-down, ultrasound-mark, real-time ultrasound guided, venography, and other groups.

Results

We received 374 responses (11,693 procedures) from 153 centers (38.5 %). The overall complication rates were 7.4 % for the chest (598/8,097 cases); 6.8 % for the neck (157/2325); 5.2 % for the upper arm (54/1,033); 7.3 % for the forearm (9/124); and 6.1 % for the other groups (7/114). Compared to the chest group, only the upper arm group showed a significantly lower incidence of complications (P = 0.010), and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.51–0.91; P = 0.008) also showed similar findings. Real-time ultrasound-guided puncture was most commonly used in the upper arm group (83.8 %), followed by the neck (69.8 %), forearm (53.2 %), chest (41.8 %), and other groups (34.2 %).

Conclusion

Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation.

Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW et al (1982) Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 92:706–712PubMed

Teichgraber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA (2011) Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108:147–154PubMedPubMedCentral

Goltz JP, Noack C, Petritsch B et al (2012) Totally implantable venous power ports of the forearm and the chest: initial clinical experience with port devices approved for high-pressure injections. Br J Radiol 85:e966–e972CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Alexander MD, Morrison HL (2012) Power-injectable ports: safety during placement, therapeutic use, and contrast administration during computed tomography procedures. J Vasc Access 13:432–437PubMed

Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F et al (1998) 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 9:767–773CrossRefPubMed

Craus W, Di Giacomo A, Tommasino U et al (2001) Totally implantable central venous access: 15 years’ experience in a single unit. J Vasc Access 2:161–167PubMed

Carlo JT, Lamont JP, McCarty TM et al (2004) A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. Am J Surg 188:722–727CrossRefPubMed

Biffi R, Toro A, Pozzi S et al (2014) Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved? Support Care Cancer 22:1705–1714CrossRefPubMed

Biffi R, Orsi F, Grasso F et al (2000) Catheter rupture and distal embolisation: a rare complication of central venous ports. J Vasc Access 1:19–22PubMed

10.

McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kusminsky RE (2007) Complications of central venous catheterization. J Am Coll Surg 204:681–696CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ezaru CS, Mangione MP, Oravitz TM et al (2009) Eliminating arterial injury during central venous catheterization using manometry. Anesth Analg 109:130–134CrossRefPubMed

13.

Pikwer A, Acosta S, Kolbel T et al (2009) Management of inadvertent arterial catheterisation associated with central venous access procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 38:707–714CrossRefPubMed

14.

Blaivas M (2009) Video analysis of accidental arterial cannulation with dynamic ultrasound guidance for central venous access. J Ultrasound Med 28:1239–1244PubMed

15.

Cayne NS, Berland TL, Rockman CB et al (2010) Experience and technique for the endovascular management of iatrogenic subclavian artery injury. Ann Vasc Surg 24:44–47CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U et al (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRefPubMed

17.

Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsieh HF et al (2006) An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:90–93CrossRefPubMed

18.

Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338CrossRefPubMed

19.

Marcy PY (2008) Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol 18:2333–2344CrossRefPubMed

20.

Salem RR, Ward BA, Ravikumar TS (1993) A new peripherally implanted subcutaneous permanent central venous access device for patients requiring chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 11:2181–2185PubMed

21.

Lyon RD, Griggs KA, Johnson AM et al (1999) Long-term follow-up of upper extremity implanted venous access devices in oncology patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:463–471CrossRefPubMed

22.

Walser EM (2012) Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35:751–764CrossRef

23.

Shiono M, Takahashi S, Kakudo Y et al (2014) Upper arm central venous port implantation: a 6-year single institutional retrospective analysis and pictorial essay of procedures for insertion. PLoS One 9:e91335CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Goltz JP, Janssen H, Petritsch B et al (2014) Femoral placement of totally implantable venous power ports as an alternative implantation site for patients with central vein occlusions. Suppor Care Cancer 22:383–387CrossRef

25.

Foley MJ (1995) Radiologic placement of long-term central venous peripheral access system ports (PAS Port): results in 150 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 6:255–262CrossRefPubMed

26.

Burbridge B, Krieger E, Stoneham G (2000) Arm placement of the Cook titanium Petite Vital-Port: results of radiologic placement in 125 patients with cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 51:163–169PubMed

27.

Yip D, Funaki B (2002) Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiol 43:371–375CrossRefPubMed

28.

Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P et al (2008) A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:222–226CrossRefPubMed

29.

Busch JD, Herrmann J, Heller F et al (2012) Follow-up of radiologically totally implanted central venous access ports of the upper arm: long-term complications in 127,750 catheter-days. Am J Roentgenol 199:447–452CrossRef

30.

Granziera E, Scarpa M, Ciccarese A et al (2014) Totally implantable venous access devices: retrospective analysis of different insertion techniques and predictors of complications in 796 devices implanted in a single institution. BMC Surg 14:27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Wildgruber M, Borgmeyer S, Haller B et al (2015) Short-term and long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of central venous access port devices implanted at the forearm: a retrospective monocenter analysis in 1704 patients. Eur Radiol 25:606–616CrossRefPubMed

32.

Noble WC (1975) Dispersal of skin microorganisms. Br J Dermatol 93:477–485CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ryder MA (1995) Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 4:395–427PubMed

34.

Goltz JP, Schmid JS, Ritter CO et al (2012) Identification of risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in patients with totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm. J Vasc Access 13:79–85CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M et al (2012) International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 38:1105–1117CrossRefPubMed

36.

Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67CrossRefPubMed

37.

Marcy PY, Chamorey E, Amoretti N et al (2008) A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1262–1269CrossRefPubMed

38.

Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R et al (2014) Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 22:121–128CrossRefPubMed

39.

Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2011) No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients’ quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial. Support Care Cancer 19:1573–1580CrossRefPubMed

40.

Biffi R, Pozzi S, Bonomo G et al (2014) Cost effectiveness of different central venous approaches for port placement and use in adult oncology patients: evidence from a randomized three-arm trial. Ann Surg Oncol 21(12):3725–3731CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan
verfasst von: Masatoshi Shiono
Shin Takahashi
Masanobu Takahashi
Takuhiro Yamaguchi
Chikashi Ishioka
Publikationsdatum: 21.06.2016
Verlag: Springer Japan
Erschienen in: International Journal of Clinical Oncology / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1341-9625
Elektronische ISSN: 1437-7772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1003-z

Springer Medizin

Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Alphablocker schützt vor Miktionsproblemen nach der Biopsie

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

Labor, CT-Anthropometrie zeigen Risiko für Pankreaskrebs

Viel pflanzliche Nahrung, seltener Prostata-Ca.-Progression

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2016

Feasibility evaluation of hypofractionated radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide in elderly patients with glioblastoma

Oral administration of the amino acids cystine and theanine attenuates the adverse events of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer patients

CpG island methylator phenotype is associated with the efficacy of sequential oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and EGFR-related gene mutation in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Incidence and risk factors of synchronous colorectal cancer in patients with esophageal cancer: an analysis of 480 consecutive colonoscopies before surgery

List of reviewers 2015–2016

Erratum to: Atypical and malignant granular cell tumors in Japan: a Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group (JMOG) study

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Alphablocker schützt vor Miktionsproblemen nach der Biopsie

Mammakarzinom: Senken Statine das krebsbedingte Sterberisiko?

Labor, CT-Anthropometrie zeigen Risiko für Pankreaskrebs

Viel pflanzliche Nahrung, seltener Prostata-Ca.-Progression

Update Onkologie