Surgeon, not technique, defines outcomes after central venous port insertion

A Five-Year Data Report of Long-Term Central Venous Catheters Focusing on Early Complications

BACKGROUND

Long-term venous access has become the standard practice for the administration of chemotherapy, fluid therapy, antibiotics, and parenteral nutrition. The most commonly used methods are percutaneous puncture of the subclavian and internal jugular veins using the Seldinger technique or surgical cutdown of the cephalic vein.

METHODS

This study is based on a quality registry including all long-term central venous catheter insertion procedures performed in patients >18 years at our department during a five-year period. The following data were registered: demographic data, main diagnosis and indications for the procedure, preoperative blood samples, type of catheter, the venous access used, and the procedure time. In addition, procedural and early postoperative complications were registered: unsuccessful procedures, malpositioned catheters, pneumothorax, hematoma complications, infections, nerve injuries, and wound ruptures. The Seldinger technique using anatomical landmarks at the left subclavian vein was the preferred access. Fluoroscopy was not used.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and one procedures were performed. In eight (0.7%) cases, the insertion of a catheter was not possible, 23 (2.1%) catheters were incorrectly positioned, twelve (1.1%) patients developed pneumothorax, nine (0.8%) developed hematoma, and three (0.27%) developed infection postoperatively. One (0.1%) patient suffered nerve injury, which totally recovered. No wound ruptures were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We have a high success rate of first-attempt insertions compared with other published data, as well as an acceptable and low rate of pneumothorax, hematoma, and infections. However, the number of malpositioned catheters was relatively high. This could probably have been avoided with routine use of fluoroscopy during the procedure.

Cephalic vein approach for the implantable central venous access: A retrospective review of the single institution's experiences; Cohort Study

Long-term venous access is usually required in patients receiving chemotherapy. We hypothesized that, out of the various central line approach techniques, the cephalic vein cut-down technique can be a safe and simple alternative in terms of surgical safety, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and functional outcomes.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 569 patients who underwent implantable central venous access between January 2012 and December 2014 at our hospital.We classified our cohort according to access routes, as follows: 230 patients underwent subclavian vein access, 134 patients underwent internal jugular vein access, 25 patients underwent external jugular vein access, and 119 patients underwent cephalic vein access. The cephalic vein group had a significantly longer operation time than the subclavian group (P < .01); however, there was no difference in operation time between the internal jugular vein and cephalic vein groups (P = .59). The procedure-related complications and functional outcomes of the implanted venous port during chemotherapy were comparable between the cephalic group and other groups. Additionally, body mass index, operation time, and age did not correlate with catheter dysfunction in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (P = .53; P = .66; P = .19, respectively).We suggest that a cut-down central venous catheter insertion through the cephalic vein can be performed easily and safely with no differences in surgical and clinical outcomes compared to those of conventional percutaneous approaches. Moreover, the cephalic vein approach requires no specialized equipment, including percutaneous vascular kits, tunneling instruments, and intraoperative ultrasonography. Therefore, this technique might incur less medical expenses than conventional approaches and would be helpful for both patients and surgeons.

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.

Programmatic change leads to enhanced resource utilization and efficiency in port placement

BACKGROUND

Central venous port (CVP) placement is performed by a variety of surgeons in different subspecialties, and our previous work suggests that individual surgeons-regardless of training-are the strongest predictor of outcomes. We sought to prospectively evaluate a programmatic shift toward a resource-conscious, patient-focused algorithm for this common and simple surgical procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After implementation of a systems-level program for efficient CVP placement, 78 CVPs were placed by a single surgeon. Primary outcomes were procedure time, total operating room (OR) time, total facility time, and procedure-related complications. These prospective data were compared with retrospective cohorts of surgically placed and interventional radiology-placed CVP. Demographic data were analyzed by chi-square analysis, whereas time data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

The programmatic delivery (prospective) set showed significantly shorter procedural (median 16 min versus 26-40, P <0.05), OR times (median 36 min versus 46-70, P <0.05), and facility times (median 235 min versus 299-319, P <0.05) except for the interventional radiology facility time (median 187 versus 235, P <0.05). The range of OR time savings with the prospective versus comparison groups was 10-34 min, representing 22%-49% reductions in OR time (P <0.05). Complication rates were not significantly different (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Through a programmatic change emphasizing efficiency and patient-centered outcomes, procedural/OR/facility time can be reduced greatly without changing complication rates. These data provide compelling evidence that common and ostensibly simple operative procedures can be substantially improved upon with thoughtful, data-driven systems-level enhancements.