The Incidence of Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices Insertion and the Associated Abnormalities in Patients With Cancer Revealed in 18F-FDG PET-CT Imaging

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.

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.