Risk Factors of Infection and Role of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Totally Implantable Venous Access Port Placement: Propensity Score Matching. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:1302-1310. [PMID: 31187229 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-019-02255-0]

Central venous access device terminologies, complications, and reason for removal in oncology: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Lack of agreed terminology and definitions in healthcare compromises communication, patient safety, optimal management of adverse events, and research progress. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the terminologies used to describe central venous access devices (CVADs), associated complications and reasons for premature removal in people undergoing cancer treatment. It also sought to identify the definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. The objective was to map language and descriptions used and to explore opportunities for standardisation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MedLine, PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL Complete and Embase databases was performed. Eligibility criteria included, but were not limited to, adult patients with cancer, and studies published between 2017 and 2022. Articles were screened and data extracted in Covidence. Data charting included study characteristics and detailed information on CVADs including terminologies and definitional sources for complications and premature removal reasons. Descriptive statistics, tables and bar graphs were used to summarise charted data.

RESULTS

From a total of 2363 potentially eligible studies, 292 were included in the review. Most were observational studies (n = 174/60%). A total of 213 unique descriptors were used to refer to CVADs, with all reasons for premature CVAD removal defined in 84 (44%) of the 193 studies only, and complications defined in 56 (57%) of the 292 studies. Where available, definitions were author-derived and/or from national resources and/or other published studies.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variation in CVAD terminology and a lack of standard definitions for associated complications and premature removal reasons was identified. This scoping review demonstrates the need to standardise CVAD nomenclature to enhance communication between healthcare professionals as patients undergoing cancer treatment transition between acute and long-term care, to enhance patient safety and rigor of research protocols, and improve the capacity for data sharing.

Comparison of Infection Rates between Single-Lumen and Double-Lumen Chest Ports among Patients with Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the port infection rate between single-lumen (SL) and double-lumen (DL) ports and to determine whether the use of a DL port is an independent risk factor for port infection among patients with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 2,573 adult oncologic patients (aged >18 years) who had either a SL (n = 841) or a DL (n = 1,732) chest port implanted between 2013 and 2020 at a single institution. Patients who had port infection, including port-site infection and port-related bloodstream infection, were identified through chart review. After propensity score matching based on 13 potentially confounding variables, a total of 493 pairs of patients with either SL (SL group) or DL (DL group) ports were subjected to analysis. The port infection rate was compared between the 2 groups using Poisson regression. Multivariate proportional subdistribution hazards regression (PSHREG) analysis was conducted to determine whether use of a DL port is an independent risk factor for port infection.

RESULTS

The cumulative follow-up period for the matched cohort was 371,853 catheter-days (median, 297 catheter-days per port; range, 0-1,903 catheter-days). The port infection rate of the DL group was significantly higher than that of the SL group (0.232 vs 0.113 infections per 1,000 catheter-days; P = .001). PSHREG analysis demonstrated that use of a DL port was an independent risk factor of port infection (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.33-3.78; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

DL ports were associated with a higher risk of port infection compared with SL ports in adult oncologic patients.

Risk factors of infection of totally implantable venous access port: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Infection is the most frequent complication associated with the use of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP). This retrospective study was conducted to determine the risk factors affecting TIVAP-related infection.

METHODS

A total of 1406 patients implanted with TIVAP at our center were included in this retrospective study. Incidence of perioperative infection, patient characteristics and bacteriologic data were retrieved and analyzed. Univariable analyses and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to determine the risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 (5.1%) patients had perioperative infection, and TIVAP was finally removed from 12 (0.85%) patients. There was significantly more hematologic malignancy in the infection group, compared to the non-infection group. Patients with chemotherapy and infection within 30 days before operation also had more infections. There were more inpatients in the infection group than in the non-infection group. The rate of hematoma was higher in the infected patients. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that hematoma (OR 5.695, p < 0.001), preoperative hospital stay (⩾14d) (OR 2.945, p < 0.001), history of chemotherapy (OR 2.628, p = 0.002), history of infection (within 30 days) (OR 4.325, p < 0.001) were independent risk factor for infection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that hematoma, preoperative hospital stay (⩾14d), history of chemotherapy and history of infection (within 30 days) are independent risk factor for all patients.

Biofilm-a Syntrophic Consortia of Microbial Cells: Boon or Bane?

Biofilm is the conglomeration of microbial cells which is associated with a surface. In the recent times, the study of biofilm has gained popularity and vivid research is being done to know about the effects of biofilm and that it consists of many organisms which are symbiotic in nature, some of which are human pathogens. Here, in this study, we have discussed about biofilms, its formation, relevance of its presence in the biosphere, and the possible remediations to cope up with its negative effects. Since removal of biofilm is difficult, emphasis has been made to suggest ways to prevent biofilm formation and also to devise ways to utilize biofilm in an economically and environment-friendly method.

Risk Factors for Early Port Infections in Adult Oncologic Patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate risk factors for chest port (port) infections within 30 days of placement (early port infections) in adult oncologic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-institution, three-center retrospective study identified 1,714 patients (868 males, 846 females; median age 60.0 years old) who underwent port placement between January 2013 and August 2017. All patients received an intravenous antibiotic prior to port placement. The median absolute neutrophil count was 5,260 cells/μL, the median white blood cell (WBC) count was 7,700 cells/μL, and the median serum albumin was 4.00 g/dL at the time of port placement. Double-lumen ports were most commonly implanted (74.85%) more frequently in an outpatient setting (72.69%). Risk factors for early port infections were elucidated using univariate and multivariate proportional subdistribution hazard regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients (1.2%) had early port infections; 15 patients (0.9%) had positive blood cultures. The mean time to infection was 20 days (range, 9-30 days). The port-related 30-day mortality rate was 0.2% (4 of 1,714 patients). Most bloodstream infections were attributed to Staphylococcus spp. (n = 11). In multivariate analysis, hematologic malignancy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.15-5.92.; P = .02), hypoalbuminemia (albumin <3.5 g/dL; HR, 3.52; 95% CI: 1.48-8.36; P = .004), leukopenia (WBC <3,500 cells/μL; HR, 3.00; 95% CI: 1.11-8.09; P = .03), and diabetes mellitus (HR, 3.71; 95% CI: 1.57-8.83) remained statistically significant risk factors for early port infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Hematologic malignancy, hypoalbuminemia, leukopenia, and diabetes mellitus at the time of port placement were independent risk factors for early port infections.

Chinese expert consensus and practice guideline of totally implantable access port for digestive tract carcinomas

Totally implantable access port is a fully implantable drug delivery system that is implanted subcutaneously and can be retained for a long time. Advantages of ports include a simple nursing process, low risk of infection and embolism, and high patient comfort. In order to promote the standardized application of ports in the treatment of digestive tract tumors and reduce port-related complications, the Chinese Research Hospital Association Digestive Tumor Committee, the Chinese Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the Chinese Gastric Cancer Association, and the Gastrointestinal Surgical Group of Chinese Surgical Society Affiliated to Chinese Medical Association have organized multidisciplinary expert discussions at the General Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army and nation-wide expert letter reviews and on-site seminars, and formulated an expert consensus of the operation guidelines.

Length of Stay Predicts Risk of Early Infection for Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Central Venous Port Placement

PURPOSE

To compare early totally implantable central venous port catheter-related infection rates after inpatient vs outpatient placement and to determine whether the risk associated with inpatient placement is influenced by length of hospital stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-institution retrospective study, 5,301 patients (3,618 women; mean age 57 y) underwent port placement by interventional radiologists between October 2004 and January 2018. The 30-day infection rate was compared between inpatients and outpatients using survival analysis. Among inpatients, the effect of time from admission to port placement and from placement to discharge was analyzed using a survival regression tree.

RESULTS

The 30-day infection rate was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9%-6.1%) among 386 inpatients and 1.0% (95% CI = 0.7%-1.3%) among 4,915 outpatients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.6, 95% CI = 2.0-6.6, P < .001). Inpatient placement was a significant risk factor after accounting for covariates in multivariate analysis (HR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.0-4.7, P = .05) and controlling for demographic differences by propensity score matching (HR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.0-7.8, P = .04). Infection rate was 11% (95% CI = 4.7%-22%) among 65 inpatients in whom time from admission to placement was ≥ 7 days, 5.1% (95% CI = 1.9%-11%) among 129 inpatients in whom admission to placement was < 7 days and time to discharge was > 3 days, and 0% (95% CI = 0%-2.1%) among 192 inpatients in whom admission to placement was < 7 days and time to discharge was ≤ 3 days (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient port placement was associated with a higher risk of early infection. However, a clinical decision tree based on shorter length of stay before and after placement may identify a subset of hospitalized patients not at increased risk for infection.