Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Safety of a Totally Implantable Central Venous Port System with Percutaneous Subclavian Vein Access

  • Keum, Dong-Yoon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Bum (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine) ;
  • Chae, Min-Cheol (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2012.02.17
  • Accepted : 2012.11.20
  • Published : 2013.06.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The role of totally implantable central venous port (TICVP) system is increasing. Implantation performed by radiologist with ultrasound-guided access of vein and fluoroscope-guided positioning of catheter is widely accepted nowadays. In this article, we summarized our experience of TICVP system by surgeon and present the success and complication rate of this surgical method. Materials and Methods: Between March 2009 and December 2010, 245 ports were implanted in 242 patients by surgeon. These procedures were performed with one small skin incision and subcutaneous puncture of subclavian vein. Patient's profiles, indications of port system, early and delayed complications, and implanted period were evaluated. Results: There were 82 men and 160 women with mean age of 55.74. Port system was implanted on right chest in 203, and left chest in 42 patients. There was no intraoperative complication. Early complications occurred in 11 patients (4.49%) including malposition of catheter tip in 6, malfunction of catheter in 3, and port site infection in 2. Late complication occurred in 12 patients (4.90%). Conclusion: Surgical insertion of TICVP system with percutaneous subclavian venous access is safe procedures with lower complications. Careful insertion of system and skilled management would decrease complication incidence.

Keywords

References

  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;22:12-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900342
  2. 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;92:706-12.
  3. Teichgraber 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;21:1224-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2045-7
  4. Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW. Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000;11:391-400.
  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;69:517-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.018
  6. Simpson KR, Hovsepian DM, Picus D. Interventional radiologic placement of chest wall ports: results and complications in 161 consecutive placements. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8:189-95.
  7. Struk DW, Bennett JD, Kozak RI. Insertion of subcutaneous central venous infusion ports by interventional radiologists. Can Assoc Radiol J 1995;46:32-6.
  8. Shetty PC, Mody MK, Kastan DJ, et al. Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports placed by interventional radiologists. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1997;8:991-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(97)70699-7
  9. Jablon LK, Ugolini KR, Nahmias NC. Cephalic vein cut-down verses percutaneous access: a retrospective study of complications of implantable venous access devices. Am J Surg 2006;192:63-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.11.012
  10. Marcy PY, Figl A, Amoretti N, Ianessi A. Arm port implantation in cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol 2010;15: 328-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-010-0041-1
  11. Nelson BE, Mayer AR, Tseng PC, Schwartz PE. Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 1994;53:98-102. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1094
  12. Harvey WH, Pick TE, Reed K, Solenberger RI. A prospective evaluation of the Port-A-Cath implantable venous access system in chronically ill adults and children. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1989;169:495-500.
  13. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, 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;20:935-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn701
  14. Lin YC, Chu CH, Ou KW, et al. Use of a totally implantable access port through the external jugular vein when the cephalic vein approach is not feasible. Ann Vasc Surg 2011;25:217-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2010.07.017
  15. Scott WL. Central venous catheters: an overview of Food and Drug Administration activities. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995;4:377-93.
  16. Schutz JC, Patel AA, Clark TW, et al. Relationship between chest port catheter tip position and port malfunction after interventional radiologic placement. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15:581-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000127890.47187.91
  17. Vesely TM. Central venous catheter tip position: a continuing controversy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14:527-34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000071097.76348.72
  18. Defalque RJ, Campbell C. Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheters. Anesthesiology 1979;50:249-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197903000-00021
  19. Rutherford JS, Merry AF, Occleshaw CJ. Depth of central venous catheterization: an audit of practice in a cardiac surgical unit. Anaesth Intensive Care 1994;22:267-71.
  20. Aslamy Z, Dewald CL, Heffner JE. MRI of central venous anatomy: implications for central venous catheter insertion. Chest 1998;114:820-6. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.114.3.820

Cited by

  1. Complications of Central Venous Totally Implantable Access Port: Internal Jugular Versus Subclavian Access vol.30, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4266/kjccm.2015.30.1.13
  2. 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
  3. Evaluation of three different techniques for insertion of totally implantable venous access device: A randomized clinical trial vol.112, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23962
  4. Totally implantable central venous port: analysis of complications and their prevention vol.2019, pp.12, 2013, https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201912113
  5. Complications of central venous port systems: a pictorial review vol.10, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0770-2
  6. Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis vol.18, pp.9, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.14930
  7. Intraoperative ipsilateral subclavian port catheter implantation in resectable breast cancer patients: A novel, safe, and convenient clinical practice vol.9, pp.23, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3595