Totally implantable venous access port via the femoral vein in a femoral port position with CT-venography

Totally implanted central venous access devices inserted by the femoral route: A narrative review and the proposal of a novel approach, the FICC-port

BACKGROUND

Femoral ports are used in patients with indication to a totally implanted venous access device but with contraindication to chest-ports and brachial ports because of obstruction of the superior vena cava. In the last three decades, femoral ports have been implanted almost exclusively by cannulation of the common femoral vein at the groin, while the position of the tip has been assessed by X-ray.

METHODS

We report our experience with a new approach to femoral ports, which includes recent methods and techniques developed in the last few years. These novel femoral ports, which we call "FICC-ports," are characterized by (a) long femoral 5 Fr polyurethane catheter inserted by ultrasound-guided puncture of the superficial femoral vein at mid-thigh; (b) intraprocedural location of the tip in the sub-diaphragmatic inferior vena cava, using ultrasound visualization by the transhepatic and/or the subcostal view; (c) low-profile or very low-profile reservoir implanted above the quadriceps muscle, at mid-thigh.

RESULTS

In the last 3 years, we have implanted 47 FICC-ports in young adults with mediastinal lymphoma compressing the superior vena cava. We had no immediate/early complication, and only three late complications (one kinking of the catheter in the subcutaneous tissue; one tip migration with secondary venous thrombosis; one persistent withdrawal occlusion due to fibroblastic sleeve).

CONCLUSION

If there is indication to a femoral port, the implantation of a "FICC-port"-as described above-is to be strongly considered in terms of safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness: no immediate-early complications, minimal late complications, no X-ray exposure, low invasiveness, low cost.

Femoral placement of a totally implantable venous access port with spontaneous catheter fracture: case report

Background

The incidence of catheter fracture after standard positioning of a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) is reported to be 1.1%–5.0%; however, the incidence of catheter fracture after TIVAP implantation at a femoral site remains unclear.

Case presentation

In a 30-year-old man with angiosarcoma of the right atrium, tumor embolism was observed from the left brachiocephalic vein to the superior vena cava. A TIVAP was implanted in the right femur. A catheter fracture was spontaneously observed after 7 months.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of catheter fracture in a TIVAP implantation at a femoral site.

The case for using implanted ports

Uses of central venous access devices (CVADs) include the administration of vital fluids and medications. Implanted ports are a type of CVAD that is used when long-term vascular access is required. The device is discreet and associated with a low risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection. This article describes the different types and components of ports and how to select them. It explains how to insert ports, and provides guidance on accessing and de-accessing them

Review and Case Studies of Midthigh Femoral Central Venous Catheter Placement

Background: Bedside vascular access options have been limited to the short peripheral intravenous, midline catheter, peripherally inserted central catheter, and central venous catheter (CVC) insertion sites such as the jugular, subclavian, and femoral vein. Many patients with limited options for upper extremity, subclavicular, supraclavicular, and cervical limitations have traditionally received a femoral CVC in the inguinal region. This insertion site is considered a high risk for infection because of its location in the inguinal region and associated difficulties with maintaining the dressing integrity. An alternative location was selected for the insertion of a femoral vein central venous catheter in the midthigh to reduce the risk of infection.

Methods: After a multiple-year implementation process, midthigh femoral (MTF) insertions were performed on a select group of patients. The case studies that are included in this report outline the indications, procedures, and other pertinent aspects of the MTF placement. Patients at this institution with contraindications to upper extremity and thoracic catheter insertion received a MTF vein CVC in place of a traditional common femoral vein catheter insertion in the inguinal area. All procedural consents include permission for photography of procedure sites.

Results: All but a single patient completed their therapy without complication; 1 intentional dislodgement by a patient was recorded. There were no MTF catheter-related bloodstream infections and 2 confirmed central line associated bloodstream infections (n = 2 of 100) with the second noted as probable contaminated specimen. Outcomes reflected no procedural complications (eg, expanding hematoma or femoral nerve injury or any other femoral artery or vein injuries) and 1 nonocclusive deep vein thrombosis (n = 1 of 100).

Conclusions: The MTF CVC provides an alternative to traditional common femoral vein catheter placement for nonemergent patients with upper extremity and thoracic contraindications to central line placement.

Experience in totally implantable venous port catheter: Analysis of 3,000 patients in 12 years

Background

This study aims to present our experience with patients who were performed totally implantable venous port catheter.

Methods

Demographics-clinical features, surgical results and complications of 3,000 patients (1,824 males, 1,176 females; mean age 61.04±11.5 years; range, 18 to 88 years) who were performed totally implantable venous port catheter between March 2005 and March 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Totally implantable venous port catheter indications, complications, catheter duration of stay, reasons for catheter removal and statistical analysis information were reported in detail by reviewing patient records.

Results

Of the cases, the Seldinger method was used in 98%, 1% (n=36) had the catheter inserted with superficial Doppler ultrasonography, while the veins were not found in 1% (n=29) and these patients were excluded from the study. Totally implantable venous port catheter was inserted via right internal jugular vein in 2,095 patients (70%), via right subclavian vein in 470 patients (16%), via left internal jugular vein in 290 patients (10%), and via left subclavian vein in 106 patients (3%). Mean duration of stay for totally implantable venous port catheter was 46.7 months (range, 1 to 78 months). Complications were detected in a total of 288 patients (9.6%), 153 (5.1%) being early and 135 (4.5%) being late. The most common oncologic indication was colorectal cancer. The rate of port removal was 298/3,000 (9.9%) and the main reasons were infection, thrombosis, pain, and end of treatment. Totally implantable venous port catheter was required to be inserted twice in 33 patients (1%) and thrice in 14 patients (0.5%). Totally implantable venous port catheter had malposition in eight patients and all were revised successfully with over the guide method.

Conclusion

Totally implantable venous port catheter may increase the quality of life in cancer patients. Despite possible complications, totally implantable venous port catheter is safe and comfortable for long-term intravenous treatment. Possible complications may be prevented or managed when totally implantable venous port catheter is performed by surgeons with adequate experience.