Journal of Chest Surgery

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

DOI QR Code

A Retrospective Clinical Study: Complications of Totally Implanted Central Venous Access Ports

  • Seok, June Pill (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Young Jin (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Hyun Min (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ryu, Han Young (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Wan Jin (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Tae Yun (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2013.08.07
  • Accepted : 2013.09.23
  • Published : 2014.02.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: When managing patients who require repeated venous access, gaining a viable intravenous route has been problematic. To improve the situation, various studies on techniques for venous access have been conducted. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of complications following totally implanted central venous access port (TICVAP) insertion. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 163 patients, from December 2008 to March 2013. The occurrence of complications was studied in three separate periods of catheter use: the intraoperative period, postoperative period, and period during the treatment. Results: A total of 165 cases of TICVAP insertions involving 156 patients were included in the final analysis. There were 35 complications (21%) overall. Among these, 31 cases of complications (19%) occurred during the treatment period and the other 4 cases were intraoperative and postoperative complications (2%). There were no statistically significant differences in age and gender of the patients between the two groups to be risk factors (p=0.147, p=0.08). Past history of chemotherapy, initial laboratory findings, and the locations of TICVAP insertion also showed no statistical significance as risk factors (p>0.05). Conclusion: Because the majority of complications occurred after port placement and during treatment, meticulous care and management and appropriate education are necessary when using TICVAPs.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim WS, Kim KB. Central venous access for chemotherapy in patients with malignant disease. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993;26:483-7.
  2. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH. A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1973;136:602-6.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Beckers MM, Ruven HJ, Seldenrijk CA, Prins MH, Biesma DH. Risk of thrombosis and infections of central venous catheters and totally implanted access ports in patients treated for cancer. Thromb Res 2010;125:318-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2009.06.008
  7. Ng F, Mastoroudes H, Paul E, et al. A comparison of Hickman line- and Port-a-Cath-associated complications in patients with solid tumours undergoing chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2007;19:551-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2007.04.003
  8. Dal Molin A, Rasero L, Guerretta L, Perfetti E, Clerico M. The late complications of totally implantable central venous access ports: the results from an Italian multicenter prospective observation study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2011;15:377-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2010.11.007
  9. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:241-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020
  10. 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
  11. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P, 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;34:222-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2007.04.003
  12. Deshpande KS, Hatem C, Ulrich HL, et al. The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population. Crit Care Med 2005;33:13-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000149838.47048.60
  13. Gutierrez I, Gollin G. Exclusion of neutropenic children from implanted central venous catheter placement: impact on early catheter removal. J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:1115-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.02.077
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Scott WL. Central venous catheters: an overview of Food and Drug Administration activities. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1995;4:377-93.
  17. 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.
  18. Ezri T, Weisenberg M, Sessler DI, et al. Correct depth of insertion of right internal jugular central venous catheters based on external landmarks: avoiding the right atrium. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2007;21:497-501. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2006.05.011

Cited by

  1. 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
  2. Performance of Venous Port Catheter Insertion by a General Surgeon: A Prospective Study vol.100, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.9738/intsurg-d-14-00214.1
  3. A Cross-Sectional Study of Patients’ Satisfaction With Totally Implanted Access Ports vol.20, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1188/16.cjon.175-180
  4. Apparent Migration of Implantable Port Devices: Normal Variations in Consideration of BMI vol.17, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5301/jva.5000502
  5. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: A review of the literature vol.19, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729818758999
  6. Risk factors for complications in cancer patients with totally implantable access ports: A retrospective study and review of the literature vol.47, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518808167
  7. Care and management of children with a totally implanted central venous access device: portacath vol.31, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7748/ncyp.2019.e799
  8. Chemoport-A Savior in Children Who Require Chronic Venous Access: An Observational Study vol.35, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5758/vsi.2019.35.3.145
  9. Supraclavicular versus infraclavicular approach in inserting totally implantable central venous access for cancer therapy: A comparative retrospective study vol.15, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242727