Upper-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis in Patients With Breast Cancer With Chest Versus Arm Central Venous Port Catheters

Quality of life in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison between PICC and PICC-port

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and new type of arm-port, the PICC-port, are currently used for neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment in patients with breast cancer. We aimed to compare Quality of Life (QoL) of patients receiving one of these two devices investigating overall satisfaction, psychological impact, as well as the impact on professional, social and sport activities, and local discomfort.

METHODS

We did a prospective observational before-after study of PICCs versus PICC-ports. Adult (aged ≥ 18 years) females with breast cancer candidate to neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. The primary outcome was QoL according to the Quality-of-Life Assessment Venous Device Catheters (QLAVD) questionnaire assessed 12 months after device implantation.

RESULTS

Between May 2019 and November 2020, of 278 individuals screened for eligibility, 210 were enrolled. PICC-ports were preferred over PICCs with a QLAVD score of 29 [25; 32] vs 31 [26; 36.5] (p = 0.014). Specifically, most QLAVD constructs related to psychological impact, social aspects, and discomfort were in favor of PICC-ports vs PICC, especially in women under the age of 60. Overall, pain scores at insertion and during therapy administration were not significantly different between the two groups, as well as infection, secondary malpositioning, thrombosis, or obstruction of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, PICC-ports were overall better accepted than PICCs in terms of QoL, especially in those who were younger. Device-related complications were similar.

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.

Risk Factors of the Totally Implantable Venous Access Device-Related Infection in Patients With Brain Tumors Undergoing Chemotherapy After Surgery

Background: The complication of totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) is an infection, which causes the death of patients. Therefore, it is critical to identify risk factors for TIVAD infection to prevent death. Patients and Methods: The enrolled patients were divided into two groups and subsequently divided into subgroups according to various factors in which the correlation between infection and risk factors was analyzed. Multivariable logistic analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for seven risk factors was performed, meanwhile, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of neutrophil and serum albumin was conducted for the prediction of TIVAD infection occurrence. Results: Catheter-related blood stream infection was the common infection type, which was dominantly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Removal of TIVAD and antibiotic therapy were the preferred approaches for the treatment of infection. Seven risk factors were closely associated with the TIVAD infection, however, two risk factors, including age and outpatient, were excluded according to the multivariate logistic analysis of ORs. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed neutrophil count and serum albumin could predict the occurrence of TIVAD infection. Conclusions: Five risk factors were positively related to TIVAD infection; neutrophil and serum albumin could be used to predict the occurrence of TIVAD infection.

Impact of totally implanted venous access port placement on body image in women with breast cancer

Totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs) have been established as effective and safe devices for oncologic patients. In breast cancer setting, the implant of the reservoir at mid-arm allows the absence of additional scars on the chest and the easier access to the port with significant cosmetic and psychological advantages. In the last decades, breast surgery has made great progresses to ameliorate the cosmetic results even in mastectomy techniques. In fact, many studies have demonstrated that negative body image perception affects physical and psychological wellbeing of survivors. Despite this evidence, limited importance is still reserved to TIVAPs placement site, which is traditionally the chest. It is not unusual to see patients after a nipple-sparing mastectomy with excellent cosmetic result who show a disfiguring scar on their upper chest due to TIVAP placement. We report the case of a young woman with BRCA2-related breast cancer who underwent bilateral nipple sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy. Her TIVAP was located at the mid-arm, which is still an uncommon site compared to the upper chest. An optimal cosmetic result was obtained both in breast reconstruction and in the arm site of port, with high-rate patient satisfaction. This case presentation aims to raise awareness towards women's body image preservation, particularly in the choice of TIVAP placement: in most cases neckline and upper chest should be avoided for a better patient related outcome.

Application of intracavitary ECG for positioning the totally implantable venous access port in the upper arm of cancer patients

Accurate positioning of the catheter tip is one of the most critical procedures in central venous catheter insertion. The traditional surface measurement method frequently has a large deviation and increases the X-ray exposure of doctors and patients. In the present retrospective study, cancer patients who received a totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) in the upper arm using intracavitary electrocardiogram (ECG) guidance were compared with those where the traditional surface measurement method was used in terms of the rate of correct placement of the catheter tip, the rate of achieving the best position, the operation time and the complications. The results indicated that the correct placement rate and the best position rate of the catheter tip at the first attempt were higher in the ECG-guided group than in the traditional surface measurement method group (95.65 vs. 82.91% and 90.58 vs. 68.38%, respectively). The mean operation time was shorter in the ECG-guided group than in the surface measurement group (46.28 vs. 63.26 min). The incidence of complications in the ECG-guided group was 6.52%, while that in the surface measurement group was 10.26%. This indicated that the intracavitary ECG-guided tip positioning technique may improve the accuracy of tip catheter placement and shorten the operation time, thus reducing ionizing radiation caused by repeated positioning. Therefore, the intracavitary ECG-guided tip positioning technique is able to effectively place the tip of the TIVAD in the upper arm, holding great promise as a clinical application.

Risk factors associated with venous thromboembolism in breast cancer: a narrative review

PURPOSE

To date, there is no universally acceptable risk assessment tool in clinical practice that accurately estimates the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with breast cancer, despite the large number of published studies. Thus, the aim of this narrative review was to summarize the most relevant risk factors for VTE in these patients.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE, from inception to March 26, 2021, to identify all articles that focused on breast cancer and multiple thromboembolic diseases. We also searched the references section of relevant articles to identify studies. We did not include case reports or case series with small sample size, N < 20.

RESULTS

VTE in patients with breast cancer was strongly associated with patient-, tumor-, and non-tumor-related risk factors, such as age, disease stage, central catheter placement, and chemotherapy and tamoxifen use, especially within 2 years of breast cancer diagnosis. CDK inhibitors are emerging factors that may also increase the risk of VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of VTE in patients with breast cancer depends on various patient-, tumor-, and non-tumor-related risk factors. Identifying these risk factors during breast cancer diagnosis and treatment is essential in developing a practical dynamic predictive tool that can help individualize strategies to prevent VTE.

A multicenter retrospective study on 4480 implanted PICC-ports: A GAVeCeLT project

BACKGROUND

PICC-ports may be defined as totally implantable central venous devices inserted in the upper limb using the current state-of-the-art techniques of PICC insertion (ultrasound-guided venipuncture of deep veins of the arm, micro-puncture kits, proper location of the tip preferably by intracavitary ECG), with placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A previous report on breast cancer patients demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these devices, with a very low failure rate.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study-developed by GAVeCeLT (the Italian Group of Long-Term Venous Access Devices)-investigated the outcomes of PICC-ports in a large cohort of unselected patients. The study included 4480 adult patients who underwent PICC-port insertion in five Italian centers, during a period of 60 months. The primary outcome was device failure, defined as any serious adverse event (SAE) requiring removal. The secondary outcome was the incidence of temporary adverse events (TAE) not requiring removal.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 15.5 months. Device failure occurred in 52 cases (1.2%), the main causes being local infection (n = 7; 0.16%) and CRBSI (n = 19; 0.42%). Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis occurred in 93 cases (2.1%), but removal was required only in one case (0.02%). Early/immediate and late TAE occurred in 904 cases (20.2%) and in 176 cases (3.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PICC-ports are safe venous access devices that should be considered as an alternative option to traditional arm-ports and chest-ports when planning chemotherapy or other long-term intermittent intravenous treatments.

Central catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis in cancer: clinical course, prophylaxis, treatment

The adequate handling of central venous catheters is a key element in the management of patients with cancer. Catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis is frequently observed in patients with malignant diseases; however, despite being a common complication among these patients, objective information concerning its epidemiology, clinical course, prophylaxis and treatment strategies is very limited. The reported incidence of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) is highly variable, depending on symptomatic events, or if patients are screened for asymptomatic thrombosis. Several factors have been identified as potential predisposing factors for CRT, both technical and pathological aspects. The anticoagulant of choice is still unclear; while low-molecular-weight heparin is most commonly used, recent studies assessing the role of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of CRT show promise as an alternative, but the evidence remains insufficient and the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis.

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.

PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The increasing use of arm totally implantable vascular access devices for breast cancer patients who require chemotherapy has led to a greater risk of complications and failures and, in particular, to upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of the arm peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT technique is an evolution of the standard arm-totally implantable vascular access device implant based on guided ultrasound venous access in the proximal third of the upper limb with subsequent placement of the reservoir at the middle third of the arm. A prospective study was conducted on 418 adult female breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The primary study outcome was peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT failure.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 215 days. Complications occurred in 29 patients (6.9%) and failure resulting in removal of the device in 11 patients (2.6%). The main complication we observed was upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, 10 (2.4%); all patients were rescued by anticoagulant treatment without peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT removal. The main reason for removal was reservoir pocket infection: 4 (0.9%) with an infection rate of 0.012 per 1000 catheter days. Cumulative 1-year risk of failure was 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-7.1%). With regard to the patients' characteristics, body mass index <22.5 was the only significant risk for failure (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

The peripherally inserted central catheter-PORT is a safe vascular device for chemotherapy delivery that achieves similar clinical results as traditional long-term vascular access devices (peripherally inserted central catheter and arm totally implantable vascular access device, in particular) in breast cancer patients.