Effect of catheter diameter on left innominate vein in breast cancer patients after totally implantable venous access port placement

Long-Term Results of a Standard Algorithm for Intravenous Port Implantation

Intravenous ports serve as vascular access and are indispensable in cancer treatment. Most studies are not based on a systematic and standardized approach. Hence, the aim of this study was to demonstrate long-term results of port implantation following a standard algorithm. A total of 2950 patients who underwent intravenous port implantation between March 2012 and December 2018 were included. Data of patients managed following a standard algorithm were analyzed for safety and long-term outcomes. The cephalic vein was the predominant choice of entry vessel. In female patients, wire assistance without use of puncture sheath was less likely and echo-guided puncture via internal jugular vein (IJV) with use of puncture sheath was more likely to be performed, compared to male patients (p < 0.0001). The procedure-related complication rate was 0.07%, and no pneumothorax, hematoma, catheter kinking, catheter fracture, or pocket erosion was reported. Catheter implantations by echo-guided puncture via IJV notably declined from 4.67% to 0.99% (p = 0.027). Mean operative time gradually declined from 37.88 min in 2012 to 23.20 min in 2018. The proposed standard algorithm for port implantation reduced the need for IJV echo-guided approach and eliminated procedure-related catastrophic complications. In addition, it shortened operative time and demonstrated good functional results.

Flap demise reversed after central venous access device removal: A case report

Patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction should be evaluated for radiation-induced venous stenosis and presence of central venous port as a potential risk for flap failure.

Comparison between Arm Port and Chest Port for Optimal Vascular Access Port in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the complication rates between arm and chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Design and Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang database were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications published from the inception of the database to 11, October 2019. Our search generated a total of 22 articles published from 2011 to 2019, including 6 comparative studies and 16 single-arm articles, involving 4131 cases and 5272 controls. Single-arm studies combined with comparative studies were also pooled and analyzed. Finally, subgroup analysis was performed to compare the rates of infection and thrombosis between these two ports. Eligibility Criteria. Included articles were research studies comparing complication rates of arm ports with chest ports in patients with breast cancer. Any review or meta-analysis article would be removed. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Demographic data and information for the following analysis were extracted. DerSimonian and Laird random effect meta-analysis was conducted to analyze comparative studies while Begg's and Egger's tests were used for assessment of publication bias. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explain the sources of heterogeneity.

Results

There was no difference in the risk of overall complications between arm and chest ports for comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with RR of 2.64, results of the subgroup analysis showed that there was no difference in the risk of catheter-related infection between these two ports. However, arm port might be associated with the higher thrombosis rates compared with chest port according to the results of the analysis for only comparative studies (P=0.083). While results of pooled comparative and single-arm studies indicated that arm port would increase the overall complication risks with.

Conclusions

This study indicated that the arm port might increase the risk of overall complication risks as well as the risk of catheter-related thrombosis compared with the chest port. However, these reported findings still need to be verified by large randomized clinical trials.