Journal of Chest Surgery

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

DOI QR Code

Incidents and Complications of Permanent Venous Central Access Systems: A Series of 1,460 Cases

  • El Hammoumi, Massine (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mohamed V Military University Hospital) ;
  • El Ouazni, Mohammed (Department of General Surgery, Avicenne Hospital) ;
  • Arsalane, Adil (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mohamed V Military University Hospital) ;
  • El Oueriachi, Faycal (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mohamed V Military University Hospital) ;
  • Mansouri, Hamid (Department of Radiotherapy, Mohamed V Military University Hospital) ;
  • Kabiri, El Hassane (Department of Thoracic Surgery, Mohamed V Military University Hospital)
  • Received : 2013.05.29
  • Accepted : 2013.10.07
  • Published : 2014.04.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Implanted venous access devices or permanent central venous access systems (PCVASs) are routinely used in oncologic patients. Complications can occur during the implantation or use of such devices. We describe such complications of the PCVAS and their management. Methods: Our retrospective study included 1,460 cases in which PCVAS was implanted in the 11 years between January 2002 and January 2013, including 810 women and 650 men with an average age of 45.2 years. We used polyurethane or silicone catheters. The site of insertion and the surgical or percutaneous procedure were selected on the basis of clinical data and disease information. The subclavian and cephalic veins were our most common sites of insertion. Results: About 1,100 cases (75%) underwent surgery by training surgeons and 360 patients by expert surgeons. Perioperative incidents occurred in 33% and 12% of these patients, respectively. Incidents (28%) included technical difficulties (n=64), a subcutaneous hematoma (n=37), pneumothoraces (n=15), and an intrapleural catheter (n=1). Complications in the short and medium term were present in 14.2% of the cases. Distortion and rupture of the catheter (n=5) were noted in the costoclavicular area (pinch-off syndrome). There were 5 cases of catheter migration into the jugular vein (n=1), superior vena cava (n=1), and heart cavities (n=3). No patient died of PCVAS insertion or complication. Conclusion: PCVAS complications should be diagnosed early and treated with probable removal of this material for preventing any life-threatening outcome associated with complicated PVCAS.

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;92:706-12.
  2. Vescia S, Baumgartner AK, Jacobs VR, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol 2008;19:9-15.
  3. Wolosker N, Yazbek G, Nishinari K, et al. Totally implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: experience in 500 patients. Sao Paulo Med J 2004;122:147-51. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802004000400003
  4. Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, et al. Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:1168-74. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-119-12-199312150-00003
  5. Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ. Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1267.
  6. Inan I, De Sousa S, Myers PO, et al. Management of malignant pleural effusion and ascites by a triple access multi perforated large diameter catheter port system. World J Surg Oncol 2008;6:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-6-85
  7. Muller H. Risiken und Komplikationen implantierter Kathetersysteme. Deutsch Z Onkol 2006;38:79-84. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-932350
  8. Hasskarl J, Koberich S, Frydrychowicz A, Illerhaus G, Waller CF. Complete caval thrombosis secondary to an implanted venous port: a case study. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105:18-21.
  9. Beckmann M, Lorenz C, Dall P. Platzierung und pflege von venosen verweilkathetern und portsystemen. Gynakologie 2000;33:255-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001290050544
  10. El Hammoumi MM, Drissi G, Achir A, Benchekroun A, Benosman A, Kabiri EH. Iatrogenic pneumothorax: experience of a Moroccan Emergency Center. Rev Port Pneumol 2013;19:65-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rppneu.2012.09.005
  11. Stelzer S. Langzeitergebnisse nach implantation von zentralvenosen port- systemen: dissertation Klinik und Poliklinik fur Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Klinikum rechts der Isar. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008;105:18-21.
  12. 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;81:1159-71. https://doi.org/10.4065/81.9.1159
  13. Lebeaux D, Zarrouk V, Leflon-Guibout V, Lefort A, Fantin B. Totally implanted access port-related infections: features and management. Rev Med Interne 2010;31:819-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revmed.2010.06.014
  14. Narducci F, Jean-Laurent M, Boulanger L, et al. 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;37:913-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.06.016
  15. Luciani A, Clement O, Halimi P, et al. Catheter-related upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients: a prospective study based on Doppler US. Radiology 2001; 220:655-60. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2203001181
  16. Stockx L, Raat H, Donck J, Wilms G, Marchal G. Repositioning and leaving in situ the central venous catheter during percutaneous treatment of associated superior vena cava syndrome: a report of eight cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1999;22:224-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002709900371
  17. Haire WD, Lynch TG, Lieberman RP, Lund GB, Edney JA. Utility of duplex ultrasound in the diagnosis of asymptomatic catheter-induced subclavian vein thrombosis. J Ultrasound Med 1991;10:493-6.
  18. Male C, Chait P, Ginsberg JS, et al. Comparison of venography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in the upper body in children: results of the PARKAA study. Prophylactic Antithrombin Replacement in Kids with ALL treated with Asparaginase. Thromb Haemost 2002;87:593-8.
  19. Borow M, Crowley JG. Evaluation of central venous catheter thrombogenicity. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl 1985;81:59-64.
  20. Theard JL, Robard S. Outcome of usage protocols on implantable devices. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1995;14:534-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0750-7658(05)80501-5
  21. Brown DF, Muirhead MJ, Travis PM, Vire SR, Weller J, Hauer-Jensen M. Mode of chemotherapy does not affect complications with an implantable venous access device. Cancer 1997;80:966-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970901)80:5<966::AID-CNCR20>3.0.CO;2-T
  22. Reichardt P, Kretzschmar A, Biakhov M, et al. A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of daily low-molecular-weightheparin (dalteparin sodium) in preventing catheter-related complications (CRCs) in cancer patients with central venous catheters (CVCs). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21:369a.
  23. 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;177:353-6. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.177.2.2217768
  24. Sarzo G, Finco C, Parise P, et al. Insertion of prolonged venous access device: a comparison between surgical cutdown and percutaneous techniques. Chir Ital 2004;56:437-42.
  25. Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsieh HF, et al. An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices: a retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32:90-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2005.09.004
  26. Desruennes E. Mechanical complications at implantation sites. Pathol Biol (Paris) 1999;47:269-72.

Cited by

  1. Improving cancer patients’ knowledge about totally implantable access port: a randomized controlled trial vol.24, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2851-1
  2. The Relationship of the Subclavius Muscle with Relevance to Venous Cannulation below the Clavicle vol.2016, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6249483
  3. Desconexão de cateter para quimioterapia: uma complicação rara? vol.15, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.007116
  4. Venous Access Devices: Clinical Rounds vol.3, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-5625.196480
  5. Late complications of totally implantable venous access ports in patients with cancer : Risk factors and related nursing strategies vol.97, pp.38, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000012427
  6. Pinch-Off Syndrome, a Rare Complication of Totally Implantable Venous Access Device Implantation: A Case Series and Literature Review vol.51, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2018.51.5.333
  7. Arm mobilization provokes deformity of long-term indwelling ports implanted via the jugular vein vol.9, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.10.010