Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan

Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: Surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) breast surgery has been increasingly performed and shown better cosmetic results. However, location of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) for systemic treatment at anterior chest may compromise its aesthetic benefits. Therefore, we proposed a new scarless technique for TIVAP implantation, and reported the preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-surveyed outcome.

METHODS

Surgical technique of the new "scarless" TIVAP implantation was proposed. Patients receiving this procedure in a single institution were included. The preliminary results of the scarless TIVAP implantation, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 125 breast cancer patients received scarless TIVAP procedures were enrolled. The primary success rate of the scarless TIVAP implantation was 100%. Mean operative time was 46 ± 14 min. Mean amount of blood loss was 8.5 ± 3.2 ml. The cumulative sum plot showed operation time significantly decreased after 24th cases. In the initial learning phase, the mean operative time was 55 ± 17 min, and decreased to 43 ± 12 min in the later mature phase (P = 0.003). There were 5 (4%) complications detected, which included 1 (0.8%) seroma formation, 2 (1.6%) revisions, and 2 (1.6%) unplanned explantations. From patients-evaluated questionnaires, more than 90% of responders were satisfied with aesthetic results, experience during surgery, and application of scarless TIVAP for systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The scarless TIVAP implantation is a safe & reliable procedure with high patients-reported aesthetic satisfaction, and could be an alternative TIVAP procedure for patients requiring chemotherapy and desiring a less noticeable scar.

Guidelines for Central Venous Port Placement and Management (Abridged Translation of the Japanese Version)

The central venous port has been widely used for patients who require long-term intravenous treatments, and the number of palcement has been increasing. The Japanese Society of Interventional Radiology developed a guideline for central venous port placement and management to provide evidence-based recommendations to support healthcare providers in the decision-making process regarding the central venous port. The guideline consisted of two parts: (i) a comprehensive review of topics including preoperative preparation, techniques for placement or removal, complications, and maintenance methods and (ii) recommendations for the six clinical questions regarding blood vessels for central venous port placement, port implantation site, prophylactic antibiotic therapy, imaging guidance for puncture, disinfectant prior to accessing the central venous port, and the optimal procedure at the end of drug administration via the central venous port, generated on the basis of the rating quality of evidence by systematic review.

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.

Safety of Early Bevacizumab Administration after Central Venous Port Placement for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Bevacizumab (BEV) requires an adequate withdrawal period to avoid BEV-related complications during major surgery. However, the safety of BEV administration immediately after surgical placement of the central venous (CV) port, a minor surgery, is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether BEV is safe when administered early after CV port placement. We retrospectively evaluated 184 patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with a BEV-containing regimen and divided them into two groups according to the interval between CV port implantation and chemotherapy initiation, with the early administration group being ≤7 days and late administration group being >7 days. Complications were then compared between the two groups. The early-administration group was significantly older and had a higher rate of colon cancer than the late-administration group. Overall, 24 (13%) patients developed CV port-related complications. Male sex was a risk factor for complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.154; 95% CI, 1.19-8.36). The two groups showed no significant difference in the frequency of complications (p = 0.84) or patient characteristics (after the inverse probability of treatment weighting, p = 0.537). In conclusion, the frequency of complications is not affected by the timing of BEV initiation after CV port implantation. Thus, early BEV administration after CV port placement is safe.

Usefulness of peripherally inserted central catheter port system (PICC-PORT) implantation in the sitting position: a new technique for cases unsuitable for conventional implantation

PURPOSE

Totally implantable central venous access port implantation is typically performed in the supine position. However, some patients cannot adopt the supine position due to severe pain and/or dyspnea. The present study evaluated the technical feasibility of peripherally inserted central catheter port system (PICC-PORT) implantation in the sitting position in such cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the sitting position method, PICC-PORT implantation was performed with the patients seated on a videofluoroscopy chair positioned between the limbs of an angiographic C-arm and the operative upper arm positioned on an arm stand. From January 2019 to September 2021, eight patients underwent PICC-PORT implantations using this sitting method. We also evaluated 251 consecutive patients with conventional supine position PICC-PORT implantation as controls. Differences in technical success, procedure time and complications were retrospectively assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

Procedural success rates were 100% in both groups. Median procedure times in the sitting and conventional groups were 42 and 44 min, respectively. No complications were observed in the sitting group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in procedure time (p = 0.674) and complications (p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of PICC-PORT in the sitting position is technically feasible and useful.

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.

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture vs. Cut-down and Residents vs. Senior Surgeons

BACKGROUND/AIM

To compare operative results between venous puncture (P) with real-time ultrasonography vs. cut-down (CD) with preoperative ultrasonography for totally implantable central vein access device (TICVAD) implantation performed by residents (R) vs. senior surgeons (S).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult oncologic patients (n=268) undergoing TICVAD implantations were retrospectively compared between 172 Ps and 96 CDs. Then, we compared Ps performed by R (P-R, n=131) and S (P-S, n=41) and CDs performed by R (CD-R, n=59) and S (CD-S, n=37).

RESULTS

Median operation times were 40 min in the P group and 53.5 min in the CD group, and times were significantly shorter for P-S and CD-S. Completion rates were comparable for each method and each surgeon. Intraoperative complication rates were 3.8% (P-R), 2.4% (P-S), and 0% (CD-R and CD-S).

CONCLUSION

P with real-time ultrasonography did not avoid complications compared to CD with preoperative ultrasonography. The latter performed safely even by residents.

Contrast examination of central venous access port implanted through internal jugular vein for evaluation of suspected complications

PURPOSE

We summarized the findings, diagnosis, and outcomes of cases for which contrast examination of central venous access ports (CV-ports) were attempted to detect complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven contrast examinations were attempted for 45 patients with 46 CV-ports (median, 162 days after implantation). Contrast examination was performed due to three suspicion catheter fractures or 54 CV-port dysfunctions (combinations of an absence of blood reflux on aspiration and 9 sufficient, 21 insufficient, or 24 impossible drip infusions).

RESULTS

Contrast examination was successfully performed in 52 cases and revealed 45 normal findings, 5 pericatheter fibrin sheath formations, and 2 partial catheter fractures. In 23 of 45 cases with normal findings, the resistance to injection was initially mild or moderate but resolved after the CV-port was flushed slowly with heparinized saline solution. Subsequent contrast examination demonstrated normal findings. All fibrin sheath formations disappeared after thrombolytic therapy. Five cases could not undergo contrast examination due to high resistance. After contrast examination, nine of 46 CV-ports were removed or exchanged, while the use of the remaining 37 continued.

CONCLUSION

Contrast examination of CV-port allowed the assessment of suspected complications and early treatment.

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.

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.

Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques.

Methods

We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, intra-operative complications, mechanical complications, conversion rate, early port removal, and operating time.

Results

Thirteen comparative studies including 3,896 patients (2,176 for chest ports, and 1,720 for arm ports) were identified. The present study showed that arm port was associated with higher procedure conversion rate (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; odd ratios [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.46; p<0.001), but lower incidence of intra-operative complications (1.38% in chest port group and 0.41% in arm port group; OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07-5.29; p=0.03). There were no between-group differences with respect to total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, mechanical complications, early port removal, and operating time. Subgroup analysis of patients under 60 years revealed that no significant difference was detected in intra-operative events (1.19% in chest port group and 0.02% in arm port group, OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.74-9.08; p<0.14), indicating that age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events. Sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions of all endpoints of interest.

Conclusion

Arm port is associated with higher procedure conversion rate, but lower incidence of intra-operative complications, and age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events.

The Safety Level of Total Central Venous Access Port Implantation Performed by Residents

OBJECTIVE

The implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) is one of the first procedures surgical residents learn. Complications after implantation procedures have a major impact on patient outcomes, as it may lead to a delay of chemotherapy regimens or of parenteral nutrition. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes after totally implantable venous access ports implantations done by resident and attending surgeons.

DESIGN

The study was performed as a retrospective analysis.

SETTING

The study took place in primary care at the Department of General and Visceral Surgery at Frankfurt University Hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 760 primary totally implantable venous access ports implantations performed between March 2008 and December 2016 were included in a database. Three groups of surgeons doing the implantations were defined: Group A (residents alone), Group B (resident with help), and Group C (attending surgeons).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the surgeon groups in operation time (p < 0.001). The groups differed between Group A (mean, 49; SD, 22) and Group C (mean, 39; SD, 20); p < 0.001) and Group B (mean, 53; SD, 23) and Group C (mean, 39; SD, 20; p < 0.001). The incidence of surgical site infections between Groups A and C (3.6% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.003) and Groups B and C (2.5% vs. 0.3%; p = 0.027) differed also significantly. Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis operation time in minutes (OR, 1.04; 95%CI, 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001) was an independent risk factor for any intraoperative complications. For any postoperative complications younger age of the patient (OR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.97-0.99; p = 0.004) and benign primary disease (OR, 3.25; 95%CI, 1.55-6.64; p = 0.002) were independent risk factors based on multivariable regression analysis. Based on multivariable regression analysis a lower body mass index of the patient (OR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.86-0.99; p = 0.044), benign primary disease (OR, 2.89; 95%CI, 1.07-7.79; p = 0.036), and no chemotherapy (OR, 3.55; 95%CI, 1.50-8.39; p = 0.004) were independent risk factors for postoperative catheter infections. Surgeon group was no risk factor, neither for intraoperative and postoperative complications, nor for catheter explantation due to complications.

CONCLUSION

Residents performing alone or residents performing with help can safely handle a central venous access port implantation. In patients with several risk factors, however, an attending should assist.

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.

Placement of central venous port catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in the routine clinical setting of a radiology department: analysis of costs and intervention duration learning curve

Background Placement of central venous port catheters (CVPS) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) is an integral component of state-of-the-art patient care. In the era of increasing cost awareness, it is desirable to have more information to comprehensively assess both procedures. Purpose To perform a retrospective analysis of interventional radiologic implantation of CVPS and PICC lines in a large patient population including a cost analysis of both methods as well as an investigation the learning curve in terms of the interventions' durations. Material and Methods All CVPS and PICC line related interventions performed in an interventional radiology department during a three-year period from January 2011 to December 2013 were examined. Documented patient data included sex, venous access site, and indication for CVPS or PICC placement. A cost analysis including intervention times was performed based on the prorated costs of equipment use, staff costs, and expenditures for disposables. The decrease in intervention duration in the course of time conformed to the learning curve. Results In total, 2987 interventions were performed by 16 radiologists: 1777 CVPS and 791 PICC lines. An average implantation took 22.5 ± 0.6 min (CVPS) and 10.1 ± 0.9 min (PICC lines). For CVPS, this average time was achieved by seven radiologists newly learning the procedures after performing 20 CVPS implantations. Total costs per implantation were €242 (CVPS) and €201 (PICC lines). Conclusion Interventional radiologic implantations of CVPS and PICC lines are well-established procedures, easy to learn by residents, and can be implanted at low costs.