Use of totally implantable central venous access port via the basilic vein in patients with thoracic malignancies

Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients

Background

The current study aims to compare the application and convenience of the upper arm port with the other two methods of implanted ports in the jugular vein and the subclavian vein in patients with gastrointestinal cancers.

Methods

Currently, the standard of practice is placement of central venous access via an internal jugular vein approach. Perioperative time, postoperative complications, and postoperative comfort level in patients receiving an implanted venous port in the upper arm were retrospectively compared to those in the jugular vein and the subclavian vein from April 2013 to November 2014.

Results

Three hundred thirty-four patients are recruited for this analysis, consisting of 107 in the upper arm vein group, 70 in the jugular vein group, and 167 in the subclavian vein group. The occurrence of catheter misplacement in the upper arm vein is higher than that in the other two groups (13.1 vs. 2.9 vs. 5.4 %, respectively, P = 0.02), while the other complications in the perioperative period were not significantly different. The occurrence of transfusion obstacle of the upper arm vein group is significantly lower than that of the jugular and subclavian groups (0.9 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.2 %, P = 0.01). The occurrence of thrombus is also lower than that of other two groups (0.9 vs. 4.3 vs. 3.6 %, P = 0.03). Regarding the postoperative comfort, the influences of appearance (0 vs. 7.1 vs. 2.9 %, P = 0.006) and sleep (0.9 vs. 4.2 vs. 10.7 %, P = 0.003) are significantly better than those of the jugular and subclavian vein groups.

Conclusions

Compared to the jugular and the subclavian vein groups, the implanted venous port in the upper arm vein has fewer complications and more convenience and comfort, and might be a superior novel choice for patients requiring long-term chemotherapy or parenteral nutrition.

Radiology-Implanted Arm Ports: A Review of the Literature

Introduction: Placement of totally implanted venous access devices, or port systems, in the upper arm is becoming a common practice in interventional radiology. To gain a better understanding of the literature in this area, we performed a search for and analysis of previous publications related to upper arm implantation of these devices by members of interventional radiology departments.

Methods: A review of the literature pertaining to upper arm port systems implanted in human beings by members of interventional radiology departments was performed, assessing publications between the years 1992 and 2014. Only English-language publications were assessed.

Results: Eighteen publications met selection criteria during the time frame reviewed. None of the studies used a prospective, randomized design; rather, all studies consisted of case–cohort descriptions of outcomes for a single device or for multiple devices. Analysis of the available literature for interventional radiology-inserted arm ports was performed. The technical success rate ranged between 93.7% and 100%, with an average of 98.9%.

Conclusions: The high technical success rate of arm port implantation and the elimination of the potential for pneumothorax, hemothorax, catheter pinch-off syndrome, and subclavian and carotid artery injury are strengths of the arm implantation strategy. There was wide variation in the rates of complications detected, in addition to inconsistent study design and study implementation strategies.

Implanting totally implantable venous access port via the internal jugular vein guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer

Background

Because of long-term use for chemotherapy and fluid administration in cancer patients, a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) has been advised as a feasible catheter. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided internal jugular vein (IJV) puncture for TIVAP implantation in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of 492 patients who underwent US-guided IJV puncture for TIVAP implantation at our oncology department between 2010 and 2013. Indications, surgical complications, and early and long-term complications were analyzed.

Results

All TIVAPs were implanted successfully. Indications for TIVAP were chemotherapy alone (88 patients), chemoradiotherapy (387 patients), surgery (12 patients), and parenteral nutrition (5 patients). Complications were observed in 65 (13.21%) patients. The median duration of the TIVAP was 359 days (range, 28 to 712 days) without damage to the port or catheter, or leakage of drugs outside of the port system.

Conclusions

A TIVAP can be employed for chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition on the implantation day. Using a US-guided IJV puncture to completely implant a TIVAP is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer.

Upper arm central venous port implantation: a 6-year single institutional retrospective analysis and pictorial essay of procedures for insertion

Background

The requirement of central venous (CV) port implantation is increasing with the increase in the number of cancer patients and advancement in chemotherapy. In our division, medical oncologists have implanted all CV ports to save time and consultation costs to other departments. Recently, upper arm implantation has become the first choice as a safe and comfortable method in our unit. Here we report our experience and discuss the procedure and its potential advantages.

Methods

All CV port implantations (n = 599) performed in our unit from January 2006 to December 2011 were analyzed. Procedural success and complication rates between subclavian and upper arm groups were compared.

Results

Both groups had similar patient characteristics. Upper arm CV port and subclavian implantations were equivalently successful and safe. Although we only retrospectively analyzed data from a single center, the upper arm group had a significantly lower overall postprocedural complication rate than the subclavian group. No pneumothorax risk, less risk of arterial puncture by ultrasound, feasibility of stopping potential arterial bleeding, and prevention of accidental arterial cannulation by targeting the characteristic solitary basilic vein were the identified advantages of upper arm CV port implantation. In addition to the aforementioned advantages, there is no risk of “pinch-off syndrome,” possibly less patient fear of manipulation, no scars on the neck and chest, easier accessibility, and compatibility with the “peripherally inserted central catheter” technique.

Conclusions

Upper arm implantation may benefit clinicians and patients with respect to safety and comfort. We also introduce our methods for upper arm CV port implantation with the videos.

Totally Implantable Venous Catheters: Insertion via Internal Jugular Vein with Pocket Implantation in the Arm is an Alternative for Diseased Thoracic Walls

Purpose

Insertion of totally implantable catheters via deep vessels that drain into the superior vena cava results in a lower incidence of venous thrombosis and infection as compared to catheters inserted into femoral and arm veins. Superior vena cava obstruction and inadequacy of the thoracic wall are conditions that prevent reservoir implantation in the chest wall. In this article, we describe a technical innovation that enables the pocket to be fixed in the arm while still allowing access to be achieved via the internal jugular vein.

Method

The procedure reported maintains the use of the internal jugular vein for access even when the patient's chest is not suited for reservoir implantation, which is localized in the arm.

Results

The procedure was successful and no complications occurred. The position of the catheter tip did not alter with arm movement.

Conclusion

The implantation of a port reservoir in the arm following venous access via the internal jugular vein is both safe and convenient.