Risk Factors for Early Port Infections in Adult Oncologic Patients

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)®: Updates on Clinical Pharmacology and Comorbidity Management in Intrathecal Drug Delivery for Cancer Pain

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on using intrathecal drug delivery in chronic pain treatment. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project's scope is to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical pharmacology and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery for cancer pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus from 2017 (when the PACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations were based on the strength of evidence, and when evidence was scant, recommendations were based on expert consensus.

RESULTS

The PACC evaluated the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based expert opinion recommendations to guide best practices in treating cancer pain. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The PACC recommends best practices regarding the use of intrathecal drug delivery in cancer pain, with an emphasis on managing the unique disease and patient characteristics encountered in oncology. These evidence- and consensus-based expert opinion recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Predictive model for totally implanted venous access ports‑related long‑term complications in patients with lung cancer

Totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs), which are typically used in oncological chemotherapy and parenteral nutritional support, are convenient and safe, and thus offer patients a higher quality of life. However, insertion or removal of the device requires a minor surgical operation. Long-term complications (>30 days post insertion), such as catheter migration, catheter-related thrombosis and infection, are major reasons for TIVAP removal and are associated with a number of factors such as body mass index and hemoglobin count. Since management of complications is typically time-consuming and costly, a predictive model of such events may be of great value. Therefore, in the present study, a predictive model for long-term complications following TIVAP implantation in patients with lung cancer was developed. After excluding patients with a large amount of missing data, 902 patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University (Nanjing, China) were ultimately included in the present study. Of the included patients, 28 had complications, indicating an incidence rate of 3.1%. Patients were randomly divided into training and test cohorts (7:3), and three machine learning-based anomaly detection algorithms, namely, the Isolation Forest, one-class Support Vector Machines (one-class SVM) and Local Outlier Factor, were used to construct a model. The performance of the model was initially evaluated by the Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), area under curve (AUC) and accuracy. The one-class SVM model demonstrated the highest performance in classifying the risk of complications associated with the use of the intracavitary electrocardiogram method for TIVAP implantation in patients with lung cancer (MCC, 0.078; AUC, 0.62; accuracy, 66.0%). In conclusion, the predictive model developed in the present study may be used to improve the early detection of TIVAP-related complications in patients with lung cancer, which could lead to the conservation of medical resources and the promotion of medical advances.

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.

Comparison of Infection Rates between Single-Lumen and Double-Lumen Chest Ports among Patients with Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the port infection rate between single-lumen (SL) and double-lumen (DL) ports and to determine whether the use of a DL port is an independent risk factor for port infection among patients with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 2,573 adult oncologic patients (aged >18 years) who had either a SL (n = 841) or a DL (n = 1,732) chest port implanted between 2013 and 2020 at a single institution. Patients who had port infection, including port-site infection and port-related bloodstream infection, were identified through chart review. After propensity score matching based on 13 potentially confounding variables, a total of 493 pairs of patients with either SL (SL group) or DL (DL group) ports were subjected to analysis. The port infection rate was compared between the 2 groups using Poisson regression. Multivariate proportional subdistribution hazards regression (PSHREG) analysis was conducted to determine whether use of a DL port is an independent risk factor for port infection.

RESULTS

The cumulative follow-up period for the matched cohort was 371,853 catheter-days (median, 297 catheter-days per port; range, 0-1,903 catheter-days). The port infection rate of the DL group was significantly higher than that of the SL group (0.232 vs 0.113 infections per 1,000 catheter-days; P = .001). PSHREG analysis demonstrated that use of a DL port was an independent risk factor of port infection (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.33-3.78; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

DL ports were associated with a higher risk of port infection compared with SL ports in adult oncologic patients.

Silver-Mixed Port Reduces Venous Access Port Related Infection Rate Compared to Non-Silver-mixed Port: A Single-center Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are increasingly used as safe and convenient central venous access devices. However, several TIVAP-related complications occur, with port/catheter infection being most common. Silver-mixed ports have recently been introduced in anticipation of reducing TIVAP infection. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of this device in reducing port infection by examining groups with and without silver-mixed devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From April 2017 to July 2022, silver-mixed ports (S group) and non-silver-mixed port group (NS group) were reviewed at our institution. The incidence of TIVAP-related infections, patient characteristics, and bacteriological data were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate risk factors for TIVAP-related infection.

RESULTS

A total of 607 patients (S group, n = 203; NS group, n = 404) were enrolled. The rates of TIVAP-related infection were 3.0% (n = 6) and 7.7% (n = 31) in the S and NS groups, respectively. The incidence of total infection per 1000 catheter-days were 0.114 and 0.214 the S and NS groups, respectively. In the entire group, the rates of infection were 6.1% (n = 37) and the incidence of total infection per 1000 catheter-days was 0.187. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed a significantly lower TIVAP-related infection rate in S group than NS group (p = 0.0216, odds ratio = 2.88 confidence interval: 1.17-7.08). No gram-negative rods were detected in the S group as port infection.

CONCLUSION

Silver-mixed port may be feasible in preventing port infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3, Local non-random sample.

Pre-Procedure Thrombocytopenia and Leukopenia Association with Risk for Infection in Image-Guided Tunneled Central Venous Catheter Placement

Placement of image-guided tunneled and non-tunneled large-bore central venous catheters (CVCs) are common procedures in interventional radiology. Although leukopenia and/or thrombocytopenia are common at the time of placement, the roles these factors may have in subsequent catheter-related infection have yet to be investigated. A single-institution retrospective review was performed in patients who underwent CVC placement in interventional radiology between 11/2018–6/2019. The electronic medical record was used to obtain demographics, procedure details, pre-placement laboratory values, and the subsequent 90-day follow-up. A total of 178 tunneled and non-tunneled CVCs met inclusion criteria during this time period. White blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts were found to be significant risk factors for subsequent infection. Administration of pre-procedure antibiotics was not found to be a significant factor for subsequent infection (p = 0.075). Leukopenia and thrombocytopenia at the time of CVC placement are both risk factors of line infection for tunneled large-bore CVCs. This should lead to the consideration of using a non-tunneled CVC when clinically feasible, or the delayed placement of these catheters until counts recover.

Single-session versus two-session placement of chest port and gastrostomy tube in patients with head and neck cancer: Is there any difference in the device-related early infection rates?

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether placement of a chest port (port) and a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) in a single session increases the risk of the early device infections in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing chemoradiation.

PURPOSE

To compare the incidence of early (≤30 days) port and G-tube infections placed in a single session compared to two separate sessions in patients with HNC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between January 2012 and December 2019, 169 patients with HNC undergoing chemoradiation had a port and a G-tube placed in a single session (single-session group), while 25 had both devices placed in two separate sessions (two-session group) within 30 days of each other. The incidence of early device infections was compared between groups. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine if the number of sessions was a variable affecting device infections.

RESULTS

A total of 6 (3%) early port infections and 13 (6.7%) early G-tube infections were identified. The two groups did not significantly differ in the incidence of early port infections (3.0%, 5/169 and 4.0%, 1/25, p = 0.59) nor early G-tube infections (7.1%, 12/169 and 4.0%, 1/25, p = 1.0). The number of sessions for device placement was not a variable affecting overall device infections in logistic regression analyses (odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.20-7.82, p = 0.82) after controlling for potential confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of early device infections in single-session placement appeared to be the same as two-session placement in patients with HNC undergoing chemoradiation.