A prospective evaluation on external jugular vein cut-down approach for TIVAD implantation

Background

Totally implantable venous access devices can be implanted both by percutaneous approaches and by surgical approaches with cephalic vein or external jugular vein cut-down techniques that are related to low intraoperative complication rates. The authors report a prospective evaluation of 83 consecutive external jugular vein cut-down approaches for totally implantable venous access devices implantation.

Methods

Eighty three consecutive patients (28 M, 55 F, mean age 54.2) suffering from solid tumors (58) or hematologic diseases (25) were consecutively submitted to totally implantable venous access devices insertion through external jugular vein cut-down approach (75 on right side, 8 on left side).

Results

All devices were surgically implanted; no instances of intraoperative complications were detected. After a minimum follow-up of 150 days, only one case of wound hematoma and one case of device malfunction due to incorrect catheter angulation were noted.

Postoperative patient satisfaction was evaluated by the use of specific questionnaire that demonstrated a good satisfaction and compliance (92.8 %) of patients with implanted devices.

Conclusions

Despite the lack of controlled studies comparing external jugular vein cut-down approach vs other approaches, this approach should be considered as a tool for long-term central vein catheters positioning, both as an alternative and for primary approach.

External jugular vein approach for TIVAD implantation: first choice or only an alternative? A review of the literature

PURPOSE

Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) can be implanted by percutaneous approach (to the subclavian or internal jugular vein) or by surgical approach, through cephalic vein or external jugular vein (EJV). The authors present a review of the literature about EJV approach for TIVAD implantation.

METHODS

A review of articles indexed in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register on "EJV access," "EJV cut-down," and "TIVADs" was performed, even matching the terms.We gathered articles from papers quoting patient number, specialist involved, number of devices implanted, site and technique of implantation and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1,308 TIVAD implantations through EJV have been reported, with a success rate ranging from 73.7% to 100% and a complication rate up to 13%. Only in 4 on 10 series reported (with more than 15 procedures) the EJV approach was the first choice, while in the other 6 series this approach was the alternative after failure of other approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of consistent series and prospective studies comparing EJV with other approaches, data present in the literature may support the evidence that EJV approach for TIVAD implantation is safe and effective, and may be considered as the first approach in selected patients.

Valve system does not reduce the catheter-related bloodstream infection

BACKGROUND

The Groshong catheter (GC) is considered to have a lower risk of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection (CVC-RBSI) than conventional catheters because of its valve system (closed-end) for preventing blood reflux. However, few studies have compared the GC with conventional (open-end) catheters in terms of catheter-related complications.

PURPOSE

To compare the incidence of catheter-related complications including CVC-RBSI between the GC and the Argyle catheter (AC).

METHODS

The GC and the AC were inserted in the same way from the internal jugular vein. Catheter-related complications were evaluated from the database retrospectively.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy GCs were inserted in 123 patients, and 251 ACs were inserted in 135 patients. There were no significant differences in patient background factors between GC and AC use, except for the following two parameters. Use of GC was associated with a longer catheter insertion length and a younger patient age. Univariate analysis revealed that neither type of catheter reduced the incidence of CVC-RBSI. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log rank test revealed no significant difference between the GC and the AC in the period from insertion to development of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The GC has no superiority over the conventional AC for preventing CVC-RBSI.