Does systemic antibiotic prophylaxis prior to the placement of totally implantable venous access devices reduce early infection? A retrospective study of 1,485 cases at a large academic institution

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.

[Surgical complications of totally implantable venous access port in children with malignant tumors]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the surgical experience of totally implantable venous access port in children with malignant tumors, and to explore the coping methods of surgical complications.

METHODS

The clinical data of 165 children with malignant tumors implanted in totally implantable venous access port in Department of Pediatric Surgery, Peking University First Hospital from January 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The operation process, complications and treatment of complications were observed and counted.

RESULTS

The children in this group were divided into external ju-gular vein incision group (n=27) and internal jugular vein puncture group (n=138) according to different surgical methods, and the latter was divided into ultrasound guided puncture group (n=95) and blind puncture group (n=43). No puncture complications occurred in the external jugular vein incision group, and the average time for successful catheterization and the number of times for catheter to enter the superior vena cava were more than those in the internal jugular vein puncture group [(9.26±1.85) min vs. (5.76±1.56) min, (1.93±0.87) times vs. 1 time], with statistical significance. The average time of successful catheterization, the success rate of one puncture, the average number of punctures and the incidence of puncture complications in the ultrasound guided right internal jugular vein puncture group were better than those in the blind puncture group [(5.36±1.12) min vs. (6.67±1.99) min, 93.68% (89/95) vs. 74.42% (32/43), (1.06±0.24) times vs. (1.29±0.55) times, 2.11% (2/95) vs. 11.63% (5/43)], with statistically significant differences. The total incidence of complications in this study was 12.12% (20/165). Pneumothorax occurred in 1 case, artery puncture by mistake in 1 case, local hematoma in 5 cases, venous access port related infection in 4 cases (venous access port local infection in 2 cases, catheter related blood flow infection in 2 cases), subcutaneous tissue thinning on the surface of port seat in 2 cases, port seat overturning in 1 case, poor transfusion in 4 cases (catheter discount in 1 case, catheter blockage in 3 cases), and foreign bodies gathered around the subcutaneous pipeline in 2 cases. There were no complications, such as catheter rupture, detachment and catheter clamping syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Totally implantable venous access port can provide safe and effective infusion channels for children with malignant tumors. Right external jugular vein incision and ultrasound-guided right internal jugular vein puncture are reliable surgical methods for children's totally implantable venous access port implantation. Surgeons should fully understand the complications of the venous access port, take measures to reduce the occurrence of complications, and properly handle the complications that have occurred.

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.