Percutaneous brachial venous access: tips and tricks

Outcome analysis in 270 radiologically guided implantations of totally implantable venous access ports via basilic vein

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are widely applied in patients who require chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, or frequent intravenous drug infusion. Although various venous access routes are possible for TIVAP insertion, the best method remains a topic of controversy. We present a single-center retrospective study of radiologically guided placement of TIVAPs through the basilic vein, with analysis of technical feasibility, patient safety, and device-related complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 270 patients who received TIVAP implantation through the basilic vein from November 2013 to July 2016, under imaging guidance by an interventional radiology team at our institution. Fluoroscopic images, chest radiographs, computed tomography scans, and medical records were reviewed after port implantation. Catheter maintenance days were calculated and catheter-related complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The procedural success rate was 99.3%. In total, 270 TIVAPs were implanted in 270 patients, of which 150 remained functional at the end of the study period. The total catheter maintenance days was 77 543 days, and the mean catheter indwelling duration was 287 ± 207 days. In 20 (7.4%) patients, TIVAP-related complications occurred during the follow-up period, resulting in a postprocedural complication rate of 0.26 incidences per 1000 catheter days. No significant relationship was observed between complications and gender (p = 0.188), age (p = 0.528), body mass index (p = 0.547), the type of primary malignancy (p = 0.914), or between the left and right basilic veins (p = 0.319).

CONCLUSION

Real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance provides a safe method for TIVAP implantation through the basilic vein, with a high technical success rate and few device-related complications.

The blind pushing technique for peripherally inserted central catheter placement through brachial vein puncture

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a prospective clinical trial evaluating the technical feasibility and short-term clinical outcome of the blind pushing technique for placement of pretrimmed peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) through brachial vein access.

METHODS

Patients requiring PICC placement at any of the three participating institutions were prospectively enrolled between January and December 2016. The review boards of all participating institutions approved this study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. PICC placement was performed using the blind pushing technique and primary brachial vein access. The following data were collected from unified case report forms: access vein, obstacles during PICC advancement, procedure time, and postprocedural complications.

RESULTS

During the 12-month study period, 1380 PICCs were placed in 1043 patients. Of these, 1092 PICCs placed in 837 patients were enrolled, with 834 PICCs (76%) and 258 PICCs (34%) placed through brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access, respectively. In both arms, obstacles were most commonly noted in the subclavian veins (n = 220) and axillary veins (n = 94). Successful puncture of the access vein was achieved at first try in 1028 PICCs (94%). The technical success rate was 99%, with 1055 PICCs (97%) placed within 120 seconds of procedure time and 1088 PICCs (99%) having the tip located at the ideal position. Follow-up Doppler ultrasound detected catheter-associated upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) for 18 PICCs in 16 patients and late symptomatic UEDVT for 16 PICCs in 16 patients (3.1%). Catheter-associated UEDVT was noted for 28 PICCs (82%) and 6 PICCs (18%) placed through brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access, respectively. The incidence of obstacles and the procedure time (<120 seconds) differed significantly between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access (P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access in the incidence of UEDVT (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-3.52; P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

The placement of pretrimmed PICCs by the blind pushing technique and primary brachial vein access is technically feasible and may represent an alternative to the conventional PICC placement technique, having low incidences of UEDVT and other complications, with no significant difference in outcomes between brachial vein and nonbrachial vein access.