Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ultrasound and Fluoroscopy-Guided Placement of Central Venous Ports via Internal Jugular Vein: Retrospective Analysis of 1254 Port Implantations at a Single Center

  • Ahn, Se-Jin (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Hyo-Cheol (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • Chung, Jin-Wook (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • An, Sang-Bu (Department of Radiology, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Yin, Yong-Hu (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jae, Hwan-Jun (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, Jae-Hyung (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2012.06.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To assess the technical success and complication rates of the radiologic placement of central venous ports via the internal jugular vein. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1254 central venous ports implanted at our institution between August 2002 and October 2009. All procedures were guided by using ultrasound and fluoroscopy. Catheter maintenance days, technical success rates, peri-procedural, as well as early and late complication rates were evaluated based on the interventional radiologic reports and patient medical records. Results: A total of 433386 catheter maintenance days (mean, 350 days; range 0-1165 days) were recorded. The technical success rate was 99.9% and a total of 61 complications occurred (5%), resulting in a post-procedural complication rate of 0.129 of 1000 catheter days. Among them, peri-procedural complications within 24 hours occurred in five patients (0.4%). There were 56 post-procedural complications including 24 (1.9%, 0.055 of 1000 catheter days) early and 32 (2.6%, 0.074 of 1000 catheter days) late complications including, infection (0.6%, 0.018 of 10000 catheter days), thrombotic malfunction (1.4%, 0.040 of 1000 catheter days), nonthrombotic malfunction (0.9%, 0.025 of 1000 catheter days), venous thrombosis (0.5%, 0.014 of 1000 catheter days), as well as wound problems (1.1%, 0.032 of 1000 catheter days). Thirty six CVPs (3%) were removed due to complications. Bloodstream infections and venous thrombosis were the two main adverse events prolonging hospitalization (mean 13 days and 5 days, respectively). Conclusion: Radiologic placement of a central venous port via the internal jugular vein is safe and efficient as evidenced by its high technical success rate and a very low complication rate.

Keywords

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
  2. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Mauri S, Goldhirsch A, et al. 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 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008392423469
  3. Cil BE, Canyigit M, Peynircioglu B, Hazirolan T, Carkaci S, Cekirge S, et al. Subcutaneous venous port implantation in adult patients: a single center experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 2006;12:93-98
  4. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.12.001
  5. Gebauer B, El-Sheik M, Vogt M, Wagner HJ. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation- -high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol 2009;69:517-522 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.018
  6. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2045-7
  7. Araújo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, Fernandes JM, Dias C, Pereira H, et al. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.04.003
  8. Biffi R, Pozzi S, Agazzi A, Pace U, Floridi A, Cenciarelli S, et al. Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients. Ann Oncol 2004;15:296-300 https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh049
  9. Karakousis CP. Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement. J Surg Oncol 2007;95:180-181 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20555
  10. Koroglu M, Demir M, Koroglu BK, Sezer MT, Akhan O, Yildiz H, et al. Percutaneous placement of central venous catheters: comparing the anatomical landmark method with the radiologically guided technique for central venous catheterization through the internal jugular vein in emergent hemodialysis patients. Acta Radiol 2006;47:43-47 https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850500406845
  11. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Pribble CG. Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a metaanalysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 1996;24:2053-2058 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199612000-00020
  12. Seiler CM, Frohlich BE, Dorsam UJ, Kienle P, Buchler MW, Knaebel HP. Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: a multivariate analysis of 400 patients. J Surg Oncol 2006;93:24-29 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20410
  13. Lorch H, Zwaan M, Kagel C, Weiss HD. Central venous access ports placed by interventional radiologists: experience with 125 consecutive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2001;24:180-184 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002700001721
  14. Moureau N, Poole S, Murdock MA, Gray SM, Semba CP. Central venous catheters in home infusion care: outcomes analysis in 50,470 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;13:1009-1016 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(07)61865-X
  15. Yip D, Funaki B. Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiol 2002;43:371-375 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0455.2002.430405.x
  16. Schutz JC, Patel AA, Clark TW, Solomon JA, Freiman DB, Tuite CM, et al. Relationship between chest port catheter tip position and port malfunction after interventional radiologic placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:581-587 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000127890.47187.91
  17. Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW; Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee. Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:S443-S452 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000094617.61428.bc
  18. Jan HC, Chou SJ, Chen TH, Lee CI, Chen TK, Lou MA. Management and prevention of complications of subcutaneous intravenous infusion port. Surg Oncol 2010 [Epub ahead of print]
  19. Funaki B. Central venous access: a primer for the diagnostic radiologist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:309-318 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.2.1790309
  20. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, 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 https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn701
  21. Chen PT, Sung CS, Wang CC, Chan KH, Chang WK, Hsu WH. Experience of anesthesiologists with percutaneous nonangiographic venous access. J Clin Anesth 2007;19:609- 615 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.06.016
  22. LaBella G, Kerlakian G, Muck P, Chung D, Vaughan A, Ritchison A. Port-A-Cath placement without the aid of fluoroscopy or localizing devices: a community hospital series. Cancer J 2005;11:157-159 https://doi.org/10.1097/00130404-200503000-00012
  23. Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:684-692 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(02)00905-1
  24. Kusminsky RE. Complications of central venous catheterization. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:681-696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.039
  25. Lefrant JY, Cuvillon P, Bénézet JF, Dauzat M, Peray P, Saïssi G, et al. Pulsed Doppler ultrasonography guidance for catheterization of the subclavian vein: a randomized study. Anesthesiology 1998;88:1195-1201 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199805000-00009
  26. Hinke DH, Zandt-Stastny DA, Goodman LR, Quebbeman EJ, Krzywda EA, Andris DA. Pinch-off syndrome: a complication of implantable subclavian venous access devices. Radiology 1990;177:353-356 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.177.2.2217768
  27. Funaki B, Szymski GX, Hackworth CA, Rosenblum JD, Burke R, Chang T, et al. Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1431-1434 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.169.5.9353475
  28. Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 2009;198:829-833 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.04.031
  29. Hsieh CC, Weng HH, Huang WS, Wang WK, Kao CL, Lu MS, et al. Analysis of risk factors for central venous port failure in cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:4709-4714 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.4709
  30. Maki DG, Kluger DM, Crnich CJ. The risk of bloodstream infection in adults with different intravascular devices: a systematic review of 200 published prospective studies. Mayo Clin Proc 2006;81:1159-1171 https://doi.org/10.4065/81.9.1159
  31. Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J, Kestenholz P, Breitenstein S, Imhof A, et al. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology 2008;74:237-244 https://doi.org/10.1159/000151393
  32. Goossens GA, Stas M, Jérôme M, Moons P. Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2011;19:883-898 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1171-3
  33. Vandoni RE, Guerra A, Sanna P, Bogen M, Cavalli F, Gertsch P. Randomised comparison of complications from three different permanent central venous access systems. Swiss Med Wkly 2009;139:313-316
  34. Frank JL, Garb JL, Halla B, Reed WP Jr. Ionic implantation of silicone chronic venous access devices does not alter thrombotic complications: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Surgery 2001;129:547-551 https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.113818
  35. Heye S, Maleux G, Goossens GA, Vaninbroukx J, Jerome M, Stas M. Feasibility and Safety of Endovascular Stripping of Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011 Apr 9 [Epub ahead of print]
  36. Luciani A, Clement O, Halimi P, Goudot D, Portier F, Bassot V, et al. Catheter-related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective study based on Doppler US. Radiology 2001;220:655-660 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2203001181
  37. Shin BS, Ahn M. Implantable central venous chemoport: comparision of results according to approach routes and methods. J Korean Radiol Soc 2003;49:165-171 https://doi.org/10.3348/jkrs.2003.49.3.165
  38. Kim SS, Kim HP, Bae JI, Won JH. Evaluation of the necessity of port fixation in central venous port implantation. J Korean Soc Radiol 2010;63:217-220 https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2010.63.3.217
  39. Akl EA, Kamath G, Yosuico V, Kim SY, Barba M, Sperati F, et al. Thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer and central venous catheters: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Cancer 2008;112:2483-2492 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23479

Cited by

  1. Implanting totally implantable venous access port via the internal jugular vein guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer vol.12, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-378
  2. Incidence and Risk Factors of Infectious Complications Related to Implantable Venous-Access Ports vol.15, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.4.494
  3. Prone positioning induced tachyarrhythmias from an implantable central venous access device vol.2, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.21466/ac.ppitfai.2014
  4. Heparin versus Saline Solution for Locking of Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (TIVAP): Cohort Study of the First Kurdistan Series of TIVAP vol.3, pp.4, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4236/alc.2014.34010
  5. Port type is a possible risk factor for implantable venous access port-related bloodstream infections and no sign of local infection predicts the growth of gram-negative bacilli vol.13, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0707-2
  6. Insertion of Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices by Surgeons vol.31, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2015.31.2.63
  7. Performance of Venous Port Catheter Insertion by a General Surgeon: A Prospective Study vol.100, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.9738/intsurg-d-14-00214.1
  8. Ultrasound-Guided Placement of Central Venous Port Systems via the Right Internal Jugular Vein: Are Chest X-Ray and/or Fluoroscopy Needed to Confirm the Correct Placement of the Device? vol.40, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3574-2
  9. A Study of Use of “PORT” Catheter in Patients with Cancer: A Single-Center Experience vol.11, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/1179554917691031
  10. Dose-Decreasing Effect of the First Reversed Laser Beam Collimator for C-Arm Type Angiographic Equipment vol.32, pp.7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.7.1083
  11. Malfunction of Totally Implantable Central Venous Ports vol.14, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.22046
  12. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: A review of the literature vol.19, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729818758999
  13. Management of venous perforation during central venous catheterization in hemodialysis patients : Three case reports vol.98, pp.25, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000016182
  14. Evaluation of complications of totally implantable central venous port system insertion vol.17, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7185
  15. Outcome analysis in 270 radiologically guided implantations of totally implantable venous access ports via basilic vein vol.83, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1097/jcma.0000000000000265
  16. Implantable Venous Access Devices in Pediatric Malignancies – Institutional Experience in a Developing Nation vol.25, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_121_19
  17. The Profile of Microorganisms Responsible for Port-Related Bacteremia in Pediatric Hemato-Oncological Patients vol.27, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1073274820904696
  18. Comparison of PICC and TIVAP in chemotherapy for patients with thyroid cancer vol.20, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11732
  19. Side-by-Side Stenting Repair of a Traumatic Pseudoaneurysm at a Venous Confluence vol.54, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574420921014
  20. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.18, pp.9, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14930
  21. Supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach in inserting totally implantable central venous access for cancer therapy: A comparative retrospective study vol.15, pp.11, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242727