Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.3.314

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)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Radiology / v.13, no.3, 2012 , pp. 314-323 More about this Journal
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
Central venous port; Totally implantable venous access device; Radiologic placement; Internal jugular vein;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)  (Related Records In Web of Science)
연도 인용수 순위
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Karakousis CP. Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement. J Surg Oncol 2007;95:180-181   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:684-692   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Kusminsky RE. Complications of central venous catheterization. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:681-696   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
31 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   DOI   ScienceOn
32 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   DOI   ScienceOn
33 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   DOI   ScienceOn
34 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
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI   ScienceOn