A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute

Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.

METHODS

We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.

RESULTS

Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.

Satisfaction of Paediatric Oncology Patients, Survivors, and Nurses with the Position of Their Totally Implantable Venous Access Port (SPACE-Study)

BACKGROUND

To compare paediatric oncologic vascular access ports located on the anterior thoracic wall to ports on the lower lateral thoracic wall, in terms of perceived port-related hindrance and scar-quality.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey study including paediatric oncology patients (≥8-<19 yrs), caregivers (in patients <8 yrs), survivors (>22 yrs with only anterior ports) and nurses of the Princess Máxima Center, the Netherlands, was performed. The survey consisted of questions regarding satisfaction, hindrance during daily life, and port position preference. For survivors, scar-quality was assessed using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS 2.0); a high score (i.e., a displeasing scar) was defined as a score higher than the third quartile of the median for that question.

RESULTS

In total, 147 participants were included; 83 patients/caregivers, 31 survivors, and 33 nurses. Overall, 81 % was satisfied with the position of their port. Satisfaction, hindrance and complications did not differ between anterior and lower lateral ports. For the anterior position, minimal pressure on the port during daily life was a mentioned reason to prefer this position. For the lower lateral position, less visibility of the scar and easiest access were mentioned. Of all survivors with an anterior port scar, one in five had a displeasing scar and all scars observed were widened. Female patients preferred a lower lateral port, and scar-quality was better for left-sided port scars.

CONCLUSION

The port position should be chosen together with patients/caregivers based on the (dis-)advantages of each position, as identified by this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

A GAVeCeLT bundle for PICC-port insertion: The SIP-Port protocol

In the last decade, a new type of brachial port has been introduced in clinical practice, the so-called "PICC-port." This is a brachial port, but inserted according to the methodologies and technologies currently adopted for the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Several studies have shown that PICC-port insertion is safe, not associated with any relevant immediate or early complication, and that the expected incidence of late complications is significantly lower if compared to "traditional" brachial ports (i.e. inserted without ultrasound guidance). Furthermore, PICC-ports yield excellent esthetic results and are associated with optimal patient compliance. This paper describes an insertion bundle-developed by GAVeCeLT, the Italian Group of Long Term Venous Access Devices, and nicknamed "SIP-Port" (Safe Insertion of PICC-Ports)-which consists of few evidence-based strategies aiming to further minimize all immediate, early, or late complications potentially associated with PICC-port insertion. Also, this insertion bundle has been developed for the purpose of defining more closely the differences between a traditional brachial port and a PICC-port. The SIP-Port bundle is currently adopted by all training courses on PICC-port insertion held by GAVeCeLT. It includes eight steps: (1) preprocedural ultrasound assessment utilizing the RaPeVA (Rapid Peripheral Venous Assessment) protocol; (2) appropriate skin antiseptic technique and maximal barrier precautions; (3) choice of appropriate vein, in terms of caliber and site; (4) clear identification of the median nerve and of the brachial artery during the venipuncture; (5) ultrasound-guided puncture and cannulation of the vein; (6) ultrasound-guided tip navigation; (7) intra-procedural assessment of tip location by intracavitary ECG or by trans-thoracic echocardiography; (8) appropriate creation and closure of the subcutaneous pocket.

A novel incision technique of a totally implanted venous access port in the upper arm for patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

A totally implanted venous access port (TIVAP) in the upper arm is a safe and cost-effective vascular access device and is widely used in breast cancer patients. Traditional tunnelling technique increases the operation time and has an unsatisfied cosmetic effect, so we explored the feasibility, cosmetic effect and complications of an upper arm port with a novel incision in this retrospective study.

METHODS

We reviewed 489 cases of totally implantable venous access port implantation in the upper arm with two types of incisions in our centre from 1 January 2018 to 30 January 2022. The patients were divided into two different incision groups including the puncture site incision group (n = 282) and the conventional tunnelling group (n = 207). The comparison of the results was collected between the two groups, and contributing factors were analyzed for major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 489 patients were successfully implanted with arm ports using the puncture site incision technique (n = 282, 57.7%) and conventional tunnelling technique (n = 207, 42.3%). The average operation time of the two types of incisions was 36.5 ± 15 min in the puncture site incision group and 55 ± 18.1 min in the tunnel needle group (P < 0.05). In terms of complications, 33 catheter-related complications occurred (6.4%), including 9 cases of infection, 15 cases of catheter-related thrombosis and 7 cases of skin exposure. Fourteen patients in the puncture site incision group developed complications compared with 17 in the traditional incision group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall complication events (5.0% and 8.2%, P = 0.145) while the same result was found in each complication event. Weight, total cholesterol and diabetes were found to be associated with device-related infections in the univariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. Diabetes was found to be associated with device-related infections in multivariate analysis while hypertension was associated with thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The puncture site incision method is a novel technique with a better cosmetic appearance and less operation time than the traditional tunnelling technique, providing a comparable overall rate of complications. It offers a preferable choice for clinicians when dealing with different situations of patients. It is worthy of being used and promoted for patients requiring the totally implanted venous access port in the upper arm.

Expert consensus on the clinical application of totally implantable venous access devices in the upper arm (2022 Edition)

With the widespread adoption of ultrasound guidance, Seldinger puncture techniques, and intracardiac electrical positioning technology for the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in recent years, an increasing number of medical staff and patients now accept peripheral placement of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) in the upper arm. This approach has the advantage of completely avoiding the risks of hemothorax, pneumothorax, and neck and chest scarring. Medical specialties presently engaged in this study in China include internal medicine, surgery, anesthesiology, and interventional departments. However, command over implantation techniques, treatment of complications, and proper use and maintenance of TIVAD remain uneven among different medical units. Moreover, currently, there are no established quality control standards for implantation techniques or specifications for handling complications. Thus, this expert consensus is proposed to improve the success rate of TIVAD implantation via the upper-arm approach, reduce complication rates, and ensure patient safety. This consensus elaborates on the technical indications and contraindications, procedures and technical points, treatment of complications, and the use and maintenance of upper-arm TIVAD, thus providing a practical reference for medical staff.

Infectious complications of radiologically placed upper arm ports: A single center analysis

OBJECTIVES

Infections are common complications in venous access ports. The presented analysis aimed to investigate the incidence, microbiological spectrum, and acquired resistances of pathogens in upper arm port associated infections to provide a decision aid in the choice of therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 2667 implantations and 608 explantations were performed at a high-volume tertiary medical center between 2015 and 2019. In cases with infectious complications (n = 131, 4.9%), procedural conditions and results of microbiological testing were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of 131 port associated infections (median dwell time 103 days, interquartile range 41-260), 49 (37.4%) were port pocket infections (PPI) and 82 (62.6%) were catheter infections (CI). Infectious complications occurred more often after implantation in inpatients compared to outpatients (P < 0.01). PPI were mainly caused by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus, 48.3%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS, 31.0%). Other gram-positive and gram-negative species were encountered in 13.8% and 6.9%, respectively. CI were caused less frequently by S. aureus (8.6%) than CoNS (39.7%). Other gram-positive and gram-negative strains were isolated in 8.6% and 31.0%, respectively. Candida species were seen in 12.1% of CI. An acquired antibiotic resistance was detected in 36.0% of all significant isolates, occurring especially in CoNS (68.3%) and gram-negative species (24.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Staphylococci comprised the largest group of pathogens in upper arm port associated infections. However, gram-negative strains and Candida species should also be considered as a cause of infection in CI. Due to the frequent detection of potential biofilm-forming pathogens, port explantation is an important therapeutic measure, especially in severely ill patients. Acquired resistances must be anticipated when choosing an empiric antibiotic treatment.

Totally implantable venous access ports: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein punctures

Background

Totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) is a completely closed intravenous infusion system that stays in the human body for a long time. It is used for the infusion of strong irritating or hyperosmotic drugs, nutritional support treatment, blood transfusion and blood specimen collection, and other purposes. There are two common ways of TIVAP: internal jugular vein implantation and subclavian vein implantation. However, the postoperative complications of the two implantation methods are quite different, and there is no recommended implantation method in the relevant guidelines. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the difference in complications of the two implantation methods, and choose the better implantation method.

Methods

Computer search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the establishment of the database to October 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 1086 patients in five studies were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of infection (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.43–1.48, p = .47), catheter blockage (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.15–3.46, p = .68), port squeeze (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.14–8.02, p = .95), catheter-related thrombosis (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.22–3.38, p = 0.83), catheter displacement (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22–1.12, p = .09), extravasation (RR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01–2.15, p = .15), and catheter rupture (RR = 3.77, 95% CI: 0.16–89.76, p = .41) between the two implantation paths.

Conclusions

There is little difference in the complication rate of TIVAP between internal jugular vein insertion and subclavian vein insertion. Due to the small number of included studies, there are certain limitations, and more studies need to be included for analysis in the future.

A multicenter retrospective study on 4480 implanted PICC-ports: A GAVeCeLT project

BACKGROUND

PICC-ports may be defined as totally implantable central venous devices inserted in the upper limb using the current state-of-the-art techniques of PICC insertion (ultrasound-guided venipuncture of deep veins of the arm, micro-puncture kits, proper location of the tip preferably by intracavitary ECG), with placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A previous report on breast cancer patients demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these devices, with a very low failure rate.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study-developed by GAVeCeLT (the Italian Group of Long-Term Venous Access Devices)-investigated the outcomes of PICC-ports in a large cohort of unselected patients. The study included 4480 adult patients who underwent PICC-port insertion in five Italian centers, during a period of 60 months. The primary outcome was device failure, defined as any serious adverse event (SAE) requiring removal. The secondary outcome was the incidence of temporary adverse events (TAE) not requiring removal.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 15.5 months. Device failure occurred in 52 cases (1.2%), the main causes being local infection (n = 7; 0.16%) and CRBSI (n = 19; 0.42%). Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis occurred in 93 cases (2.1%), but removal was required only in one case (0.02%). Early/immediate and late TAE occurred in 904 cases (20.2%) and in 176 cases (3.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC-ports are safe venous access devices that should be considered as an alternative option to traditional arm-ports and chest-ports when planning chemotherapy or other long-term intermittent intravenous treatments.

Use of catheter with 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine polymer coating is associated with long-term availability of central venous port

Central venous port (CVP) is a widely used totally implantable venous access device. Recognition of risks associated with CVP-related complications is clinically important for safe, reliable, and long-term intravenous access. We therefore investigated factors associated with CVP infection and evulsion, including the device type. A total of 308 consecutive patients with initial CVP implantation between January 2011 and December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed, and the association of clinical features with CVP-related complications were analyzed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred in 11 (3.6%) and 39 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The overall rate of CVP availability at six months was 91.4%. Malignancy and 2-Methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) polymer-coated catheter use were negatively associated with the incidence of CVP infections. Accordingly, malignancy and MPC polymer-coated catheter use were independent predictors for lower CVP evulsion rate (odds ratio, 0.23 and 0.18, respectively). Furthermore, both factors were significantly associated with longer CVP availability (hazard ratio, 0.24 and 0.27, respectively). This retrospective study identified factors associated with CVP-related complications and long-term CVP availability. Notably, MPC polymer-coated catheter use was significantly associated with a lower rate of CVP infection and longer CVP availability, suggesting the preventive effect of MPC coating on CVP infection.

An analysis of totally implantable central venous port system infections in an urban tertiary referral center

A frequent complication of central venous port systems (CVP) is infection (CVP-I), either local (CVP-LI) or a life-threatening blood stream infection (CVP-BSI). We examined the course of CVP-I including results of an antibiotic eradication attempt of CVP-BSI. We investigated adults with CVP-I from 2010 to 2018 who had to undergo port explantation or were treated by a combination of systemic antibiotics and antibiotic lock therapy (ALT). In nine years we diagnosed 206 CVP-I (CVP-LI: 52; CVP-BSI: 152). In 146 patients with CVP-I the port system was primary explanted, while 56 patients received antibiotics/ALT. 79% of Gram negative pathogens and 50% of coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) were eradicated. Failure of antibiotic treatment was more often associated with short time span since CVP implantation, neutropenia and polymicrobial infection. All patients with non-neoplastic disease survived, while 18/173 patients (10%) with underlying malignant disease had a fatal outcome in the same hospital stay.

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) for chemotherapy are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to quantify the incidence of TIVAP-associated VTE and compare it with external central venous catheters (CVCs) in cancer patients through a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Studies reporting on VTE risk associated with TIVAP were retrieved from medical literature databases. In publications without a comparison group, the pooled incidence of TIVAP-related VTE was calculated. For studies comparing TIVAPs with external CVCs, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to assess the risk of VTE.

RESULTS

In total, 80 studies (11 with a comparison group and 69 without) including 39 148 patients were retrieved. In the noncomparison studies, the overall symptomatic VTE incidence was 2.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.24-3.28), and 0.08 (95 CI: 0.06-0.10) per 1000 catheter-days. This risk was highest when TIVAPs were inserted via the upper-extremity vein (3.54%, 95% CI: 2.94-4.76). Our meta-analysis of the case-control studies showed that TIVAPs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE compared with peripherally inserted central catheters (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09-0.43), and a trend for lower VTE risk compared with Hickman catheters (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37-1.50). Meta-regression models suggested that regional difference may significantly impact on the incidence of VTE associated with TIVAPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that the cancer patients with TIVAP are less likely to develop VTE compared with external CVCs. This should be considered when choosing the indwelling intravenous device for chemotherapy. However, more attention should be paid when choosing upper-extremity veins as the insertion site.

A Comparison of 2 Venous Puncture Sites for Peripheral Implanted Ports

The use of peripheral implanted ports to administer parenteral nutrition in a number of patient cohorts is increasingly seen as a safe alternative to chest ports with equivalence in long-term outcomes. Two insertion sites on the upper arm were compared using the zone insertion method (ZIM), which was developed as an approach to optimize and reduce catheter-related exit site complications. The ZIM divides the medial upper arm into 3 main colors, red, green, and yellow, which are based on musculoskeletal, skin, and vessel characteristics. The optimal exit site is considered to be the green zone, the middle third of the upper arm. Thirty-five patients were allocated to vein puncture at the yellow/green zone (group A) and 35 patients at the yellow zone near the axilla (group B). All devices were implanted in the distal green zone. Successful peripheral port implantation was 91.4% (n = 35) for group A and 100.0% (n = 35) for group B (P = .07). No procedural or postprocedural complications were observed.

Implanting totally implantable venous access ports in the upper arm is feasible and safe for patients with early breast cancer

PURPOSE

Totally implantable venous access ports are widely used in chemotherapy for malignant tumors. This retrospective study investigated the safety, technical feasibility, and device-related complications of totally implantable venous access ports implanted in the upper arm.

METHODS

Between May 2016 and June 2018, 570 women with early breast cancer received chemotherapy and were successfully implanted with a totally implantable venous access port in the upper arm. Device-related complications were collected and influencing factors were analyzed for major complications.

RESULTS

Only one case underwent premature port removal before the end of chemotherapy. Device-related complications were observed in 32 cases, including 31 late complications. The rate of complications was 0.263/1000 catheter-days. Infection and thrombosis were the most common complications, occurring in 13 and 8 cases, respectively. Other complications were catheter occlusion, catheter dislocation, arrhythmia, and so on. Patients with higher body mass index were significantly more prone to infection and those who experienced catheter-related thrombosis had longer implantation times and higher body mass indices.

CONCLUSION

Implanting totally implantable venous access ports in the upper arm is feasible and safe for patients with early breast cancer, with a low rate of complications, providing good alternative to central venous ports.

Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein

PURPOSE

Several studies have analyzed late complications associated with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) implantation via the internal jugular vein (IJV); however, the reported results are inconclusive. The aim of the study is to elucidate the characteristics and risk factors of late complications associated with TIVAP implantation via the IJV.

METHODS

The study included 482 patients who underwent TIVAP implantation for long-term chemotherapy and/or nutritional support between April 2012 and December 2017. Most patients (95.2%) had malignant diseases. Events requiring TIVAP removal were defined as TIVAP-related complications.

RESULTS

The median TIVAP and global follow-ups were 319 days (IQR 152-661) and 218,971 catheter days, respectively. The 3-year cumulative TIVAP availability rate was 70%. There were 44 complications (incidence of 9.1%; 0.201 complications/1000 catheter days). Infectious, catheter-related, and port-related complications occurred in 21, 14, and 9 patients, respectively with infectious complications occurring earlier and more frequently than catheter- and port-related complications. Multivariate analysis revealed that age < 65 years and presence of non-gastrointestinal diseases were significant unfavorable factors for TIVAP-related complications. Patients with 1 and 2 of these factors had an elevated risk (2.2 and 5.4 times, respectively) compared with those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the late complications associated with TIVAP implantation via the IJV, infectious complications occur earlier and more frequently than catheter- and port-related complications. Patients with an age < 65 years and having non-gastrointestinal diseases have a significantly high risk of TIVAP-related complications.

PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The increasing use of arm totally implantable vascular access devices for breast cancer patients who require chemotherapy has led to a greater risk of complications and failures and, in particular, to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of the arm peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique is an evolution of the standard arm-totally implantable vascular access device implant based on guided ultrasound venous access in the proximal third of the upper limb with subsequent placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A prospective study was conducted on 418 adult female breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 215 days. Complications occurred in 29 patients (6.9%) and failure resulting in removal of the device in 11 patients (2.6%). The main complication we observed was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, 10 (2.4%); all patients were rescued by anticoagulant treatment without peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT removal. The main reason for removal was reservoir pocket infection: 4 (0.9%) with an infection rate of 0.012 per 1000 catheter days. Cumulative 1-year risk of failure was 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.1%). With regard to the patients' characteristics, body mass index <22.5 was the only significant risk for failure (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT is a safe vascular device for chemotherapy delivery that achieves similar clinical results as traditional long-term vascular access devices (peripherally inserted central catheter and arm totally implantable vascular access device, in particular) in breast cancer patients.

Incidence of and risk factors for totally implantable vascular access device complications in patients with gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis

Totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVADs) are often used to administer chemotherapy by prolonged intravenous infusion. The objective of the present study was to investigate the incidence of long-term complications and identify risk factors associated with TIVAD placement in patients with gastric cancer. A total of 121 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone 150 TIVAD placement procedures for chemotherapy or supportive care were enrolled in the present retrospective cohort study. A number of risk factors were analyzed, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, history of thrombosis, body mass index, disease stage, and site and purpose of TIVAD. In total, 40 TIVADs (26.7%) developed long-term complications, of which 27 (18.0%) were infections, seven (4.7%) were catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (CR-DVT), and six (4.0%) were obstructions. Chemotherapy was associated with an increased rate of infectious adverse events (odds ratio 2.925; 95% CI, 1.104-7.750; P=0.031) according to the multivariate analysis. CR-DVT occurred more frequently in upper arm ports than in chest wall ports; however, this difference was not statistically significant (7.5 vs. 0.0%; P=0.084) according to the univariable analysis. All CR-DVTs developed in the upper arm sites. Chemotherapy and the upper arm site were associated with long-term complications in patients with TIVAD. However, further studies are needed to confirm the findings of the present study and to determine the reasons for the high incidence of long-term complications in these patients.

Placement of Subcutaneous Central Venous Ports in Breast Cancer Patients: Does Side Matter?

BACKGROUND

Central venous ports placed for breast cancer treatment have traditionally been placed contralateral to the disease. This is done out of concern for the possibility of an increased risk of complications with ipsilateral port placement. There have been only a few small studies evaluating complication rates between ports placed ipsilateral versus contralateral to the breast cancer. We sought to determine if there was a difference in port complications or lymphedema rates by location.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective review was conducted of adult (aged >18 y) females undergoing central venous port placement for breast cancer treatment from 2012 to 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 581 females were identified with a mean age of 52.9 ± 11.7 y. Ipsilateral ports were placed in 41 patients (7.1%). Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be placed via the internal jugular vein (56.1%), whereas contralateral ports were more likely to be placed in the subclavian vein (67.2%; P = 0.002). There was no difference between stage at diagnosis (P = 0.059), type of breast surgery (P = 0.999), axillary surgery (P = 0.087), or administration of radiation therapy (P = 0.684) between the groups. Ipsilateral ports were more likely to be on the right side, 73.2% versus 51.1% (P = 0.006). Port complications requiring intervention occurred in 3 patients (7.3%) with ipsilateral port and 33 patients (6.1%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.73). Lymphedema occurred in 8 patients (20%) with ipsilateral ports and 118 patients (21.9%) with contralateral ports (P = 0.639). On multivariable analysis, the type of axillary surgery (P = 0.003) was associated with upper extremity lymphedema, whereas port sidedness (P = 0.26) was not.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in port complications or lymphedema rates between patients who had ports placed on the ipsilateral side compared with the contralateral side for breast cancer treatment.

Trapezius Port Placement in Patients with Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-up and Quality-of-Life Assessment

PURPOSE

To evaluate the long-term results of and patient satisfaction with trapezius ports in breast cancer patients, as an alternative to chest ports.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients who underwent trapezius port placement from December 2007 to January 2017. Seventy female patients with breast cancer, with a mean age of 54 ± 9.9 years (range, 29-76 years), were included. Indications for trapezius implantation were bilateral breast surgery or unilateral breast surgery and contralateral breast involvement. Sixty-eight of 70 patients had long-term follow-up. A retrospective, questionnaire-based survey was conducted to assess satisfaction and the trapezius port's effect on the daily life of the patient.

RESULTS

All implantations were technically successful. Total catheter service time for 68 patients was 65,952 days (2 patients were lost to follow-up). Mean catheter service time was 969.8 days (range 7-3,458 days; median 570 days; 95% confidence interval, 739-1199; standard deviation, 947.7). No immediate procedural complications occurred. Port complications developed in 4 patients (5.9%); port infection developed in 2 patients (0.03/1,000 days); skin dehiscence developed in 1 patient (0.02/1,000 days); and port malfunction developed in 1 patient (0.02/1,000 days). The overall infection rate was 2.9% (2/68). All patients (n = 44) or a close relative (n = 17) who were interviewed with a phone call reported satisfaction regarding their ports.

CONCLUSIONS

Trapezius ports offer a safe and feasible option to patients with breast cancer who need an alternative site to chest ports. It is also associated with high overall patient satisfaction.

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare peripheral arm ports versus central chest ports in complication rates.

BACKGROUND

Late complications of arm ports versus chest ports, including catheter-related infection, venous thrombosis and catheter obstruction, remain controversial.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis conducted following the Cochrane handbook.

DATA SOURCES

Studies published between 1950-August 2017 were searched through Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library.

REVIEW METHODS

Two authors independently searched the eligible studies and extracted the data. Studies reporting complications of arm ports compared with chest ports, published in full texts and abstracts, were included. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We did subgroup analyses according to cancer type, age, follow-up and anticoagulant. Relative ratios were calculated with different models.

RESULTS

A total of 15 articles covering 3,524 tumour patients met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in catheter-related infection and catheter obstruction between arm ports and chest ports. After reducing the high heterogeneity, no difference was observed in thrombosis overall; however, arm ports had a lower thrombosis rate than chest ports in patients with head and neck cancer, while a higher thrombosis rate was observed in patients <60 years old or follow up ≥1 year. Further studies are needed in venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Arm ports are a safe option beside chest ports for adult patients with malignancy, especially in patients with head-neck cancer or breast cancer. Patients should be well informed of the advantages and disadvantages of different vascular access devices and provided a choice.

Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters

Most of the patients undergoing treatment for cancer require placement of a totally implantable venous access device to facilitate safe delivery of chemotherapy. However, implantable ports also increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis and related complications in this high-risk population. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) in patients with breast cancer to determine whether the risk of UEDVT was higher with chest versus arm ports, as well as to determine the importance of previously reported risk factors predisposing to UEDVT in the setting of active cancer. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 297 women with breast cancer who had ports placed in our institution between the dates of December 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was the development of radiologically confirmed UEDVT ipsilateral to the implanted port. Overall, 17 of 297 study subjects (5.7%) were found to have UEDVT. There was 1 documented case of associated pulmonary embolism. Fourteen (9.5%) of 147 subjects with arm ports experienced UEDVT compared with only 3 (2.0%) of 150 subjects with chest ports (P = .0056). Thus, implantation of arm ports as opposed to chest ports may be associated with a higher rate of UEDVT in patients with breast cancer.

Impact of port site scar on perception of patients with breast cancer: patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

As the number of survivors continues to increase with improvements in breast cancer treatment, greater emphasis has been placed on the aesthetic outcome following breast surgery. Effort is made to minimize scarring on the breast, yet patients who require a port for treatment inevitably have a scar on the upper chest from the port itself. We hypothesized that patients with breast cancer are conscious of their port scars, and if given a choice would prefer placement of the port in the arm rather than the chest.

METHODS

Female breast cancer patients treated at our Breast Center who had a port placed from 2009 to 2015 were asked to complete a 20-question, anonymous survey via SurveyMonkey® reporting demographics and treatment information, and a validated Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire (PSAQ).

RESULTS

Of 139 identified, 105 had email information available for contact, and 67 (64%) patients responded. Of the 67, 37 (55%) had undergone arm placement and 30 (45%), chest. Sixty (92%) patients report noticing their scars; 44 (69%) believed that their scar was noticeable to others; and 22 of the 44 (50%) made an effort to hide their scar. Thirty-seven patients were offered options for port site placement, and 24 (65%) chose placement in the arm (p = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

Most patients are conscious of their port scars and if offered the choice choose placement in the arm rather than the chest. Upper extremity port placement should be further explored as an alternative approach for patients with breast cancer to improve port scar consciousness.

Percutaneous transvenous retrieval of fractured catheter in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous transvenous retrieval of intravascular fractured catheter and to evaluate the possible reasons and final results in cancer patients.

METHODS

A dataset of 19 patients was used. Percutaneous transvenous retrieval of intravascular fractured catheter was performed in each patients. Clinical data was retrospectively analyzed with respect to the efficacy, safety and outcome, and chest radiography was performed to verify that no catheter fragments were left.

RESULTS

Two cases had peripherally inserted central catheter and 17 had subcutaneous implanted port catheter. The catheter fragments were located in the brachiocephalic vein-superior vena cava (n = 1), superior vena cava (n = 1), superior and inferior vena cava (n = 1), superior vena cava-right atrium (n = 2), brachiocephalic vein-superior vena cava-right atrium (n = 1), superior vena cava-right atrium-right ventricle (n = 6), brachiocephalic vein-superior vena cava-right atrium and right ventricle (n = 1) and pulmonary artery (n = 6), respectively. All of these catheter fragments were retrieved successfully. No complications such as bleeding and thrombosis were found.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous transvenous retrieval is a safe, minimally invasive and relatively simple procedure for the patients with fractured catheter and should be recommended as the first choice.

Initial experiences with a new design for a preattached intravenous port device

All available conventional ports share a common design, including catheter, locking nut, and port body, and all share two sites of structural weakness. One site is the junction between the locking nut and the proximal end of the catheter. The other site is the catheter fixation site between the locking nut and the protruding stud of the connecting tube. To overcome these shortcomings, we designed a new type of intravenous port which combines the connecting tube into one piece. The aims of this study were to test the mechanical characteristics of the new design and assess its safety in animal study. The prototype of the preattached port was manufactured from biocompatible materials, including PEEK, silicone and polyurethane. All components were assembled with biocompatible glue and mechanical and safety tests were performed to determine the mechanical strength, and tissue reaction of surrounding soft tissue and entry vessels. The mechanical tests showed the new design would not lead to catheter fracture in the oscillation test. The traction test showed significant peak load (18.75 ± 3.29 vs. 26.61 ± 1.75 N; p = 0.036) because of the difference in catheter extension capacity (26.57 ± 4.28 vs. 47.93 ± 2.45 mm; p = 0.012). Significantly smaller endurable injection pressure was identified in the prototype. (90 ± 20 vs. 177.5± 9.48 psi; p = 0.01) The safety test showed good tolerance in beagle dogs and led to no intravascular thrombus and minimal reaction in surrounding tissues. The new prototype preattached port showed good mechanical strength and overcame two potential structural weakness points. The integrated fixation design not only reduced the dimensions of the port device but also provided a greater injection area compared to current designs. It did not cause intravascular thrombosis and produced minimal tissue reaction in surrounding soft tissue, as identified by autopsy. The new design of the fixation device could serve as the basis for the next generation of intravenous ports. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 106B: 1017-1027, 2018.

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs).

METHODS

A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients' satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients' satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.