Cortés-Flores AO, Morgan-Villela G, Juárez-Uzeta EA, Fuentes-Orozco C, Jiménez-Tornero J, González-Ojeda A

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 429-434
PDF size: 120.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: use of totally implantable central venous access ports in cancer patients is a common practice for chemotherapy not excluding early and late morbidity.
Objective: to report the experience using these devices in a private cancer center.
Methods: a consecutive series of 156 cases of patients using these devices placed by the same surgical team to enhance chemotherapy. They were evaluated over a period of 44 months. Prevalence of early and late complications and days-risk for patientinfection was determined.
Results: in 140 cases (89.8%) patients underwent placement of totally implantable devices by surgical cut down through the external jugular vein. One case, (0.6%) through the internal jugular, and another one (0.6%) through the cephalic vein (0.6%). In the remaining 13 cases (8.4%) devices were placed by percutaneous puncture of the subclavian vein. In one case it was impossible to place it by any of the two access ways (0.6%). The prevalence of early complications was 3.22% and of late complications 1.93%. The average days-risk for the development of infection was 473.8/per-patient. One case had fracture of the catheter during follow up. There was no mortality.
Discussion: overall complication rate was 5.15%, similar to that reported by reference centers, without infection during follow-up. Access through the external jugular vein facilitates correct positioning of the catheter and has fewer complications.
Conclusions: the combination of a trained surgical team and careful monitoring reduces morbidity and prevents infections. Access thorugh the external jugular is recommended for its accessibility and low morbidity.

REFERENCES

1. Gyves J, Ensminger W, Niederhuber J, Liepman M, Cozzi E, Doan K, et al. Totally implanted system for intravenous chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Am J Med 1982;73(6):841-845.

2. Ballarini C, Intra M, Pisani-Ceretti A, Cordovana A, Pagani M, Farina G, et al. Complications of Subcutaneous Infusion Port in the General Oncology Population. Oncology 1999;568(2):97-102.

3. Jablon LK, Ugolini KR, Nahmias NC. Cephalic vein cut-down versus percutaneous access: a retrospective study of complications of implantable venous access devices. Am J Surg 2006;192(1):63-67.

4. Sticca RP, Dewing BD, Harris JD. Outcomes of surgical and radiologic placed implantable central venous access ports. Am J Surg 2009;198(6):829-833.

5. Lin YC, Chu CH, Ou KW, Chan DC, Hsieh CB, Chen TW, 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(2):217-221.

6. Ignatov A, Hoffman O, Smith B, Fahlke J, Peters B, Bischoff J, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35(3):241-246.

7. 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(7):767-773.

8. Dal Molin A, Rasero L, Gueretta 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(5);377-381.

9. Jan HC, Chou SJ, Chen TH, Lee CI, Chen TK, Lou MA. Management and prevention of complications of subcutaneous intravenous infusion port. Surg Oncol 2012;21(1):7-13.

10. Ng F, Mastoroudes H, Paul E, Davies N, Tibballs J, Hochhauser D, et al. A Comparison of Hickman Line - and Port-a-Cath-associated Complications in Patients with Solid Tumours Undergoing Chemotherapy. Clin Oncol 2007;19(7):551-556.

11. Rauthe G, Altmann C. Complications in connection with venous port systems: prevention and therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol 1998;24(3):192-198.

12. Schwarz RE, Groeger JS, Coit DG. Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients. Cancer 1997;79(8):1635- 1640.

13. Ohno H, Mizumoto C, Otsuki Y, Oguma S, Yoshida Y. The duration of functioning of a subcutaneous implantable port for the treatment of hematological tumors: a single institution-based study. Int J Clin Oncol 2010;15(2):172-178.

14. Goossens GA, Stas M, Jérôme M, Moons P. Systemic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access device in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2011;19(7):883-898.

15. Walser EM. Venous Access Ports: Indications, Implantation Technique, Follow-Up, and Complications. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011). Disponible en: http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.library. emory.edu/content/e773q82h22q2p722/fulltext.pdf.

16. Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsieh HF, Chen TW, Chen CJ, Chan DC, et al. An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eu J Surg Oncol 2006;32(1):90-93.

17. 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 catheterrelated complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 2009;20(5):935-940.

18. Knebel P, López-Benitez R, Fisher L, Radeleff BA, Stampfl U, Bruckner T, et al. Insertion of totally implantable venous access devices: An expertise-based, randomized, controlled trial (NCT00600444). Ann Surg 2011;253:1111-1117.

19. 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(2):222-226.

20. Durán-Briones G. Angioacceso central guiado por ultrasonografía de alta resolución para monitoreo invasivo transanestésico Cir Cir 2010;78(5):418-422.