Application and comparison of different implanted ports in malignant tumor patients

Application of pocket-first technique for implantation of totally implantable venous access ports

BACKGROUND

While vascular puncture is always performed before making port pocket in the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP), some surgeons preferred to make port pocket first. This study seeks to verify the safety and feasibility for the pocket-first technique.

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed 447 patients who undergone TIVAP implantation from July 2017 to November 2022. All the patients were divided into two groups based on vascular puncture first or making port pocket first. The general information, operation information and post-operative complications were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

All the operations were performed successfully. No difference was observed in the sex, age, height, weight, BMI, port location and total complication rate between the two groups. The operation time of the Puncture Group and the Pocket Group were 46.9 ± 22.4 min and 33.8 ± 13.6 min ( P<0.00001 ). In the patients of SCV approach, the operation time between the two groups were 37.4 ± 14.8 min and 33.5 ± 10.9 min ( P<0.05 ). Multivariate analysis showed the variable BMI and first procedure were independent prognostic factors for operation time. In the cases using SCV/AxV approach the variable first procedure was the only independent prognostic factor for operation time (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The pocket-first technique can be considered as a safe, feasible and convenient technique for TIVAP implantation. The time consuming is significantly shortened compared with the puncture-first technique and this advantage may be more obvious when using SCV/AxV approach.

Chinesization of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port, and its reliability and validity tests for patients with breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To translate the assessment item sets of the Canadian version of the quality of life assessment, venous device-port for breast cancer patients with chest and arm ports (i.e. different implanting sites) into Chinese version, and to conduct a test of reliability and validity for it.

METHODS

According to the Brislin translation model, quality of life assessment, venous device-port underwent literal and back translations, and the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port was preliminarily revised by consulting an expert and a preliminary test. A total of 270 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were assessed during the use of ports, and the reliability and the validity of the Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale were then tested.

RESULTS

The scale consisted of 23 yes/no items and seven numerical rating scales. The total Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale was 0.829, and each item ranged from 0.812 to 0.845. The item-level content validity index was 0.67-1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average and the scale-level content validity index/universal agreement were 0.98 and 0.90, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the repeated measurement results of the scale was 0.554 (p < 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis showed that the cumulative explained variance of five common factors was 64.197%.

CONCLUSION

The Chinese version of quality of life assessment, venous device-port scale is an effective assessment tool for quality of life with good reliability and validity in breast cancer patients with different implantation sites for totally implanted venous access devices in northern China.

Outcome analysis in 270 radiologically guided implantations of totally implantable venous access ports via basilic vein

BACKGROUND

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are widely applied in patients who require chemotherapy, parenteral nutrition, or frequent intravenous drug infusion. Although various venous access routes are possible for TIVAP insertion, the best method remains a topic of controversy. We present a single-center retrospective study of radiologically guided placement of TIVAPs through the basilic vein, with analysis of technical feasibility, patient safety, and device-related complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 270 patients who received TIVAP implantation through the basilic vein from November 2013 to July 2016, under imaging guidance by an interventional radiology team at our institution. Fluoroscopic images, chest radiographs, computed tomography scans, and medical records were reviewed after port implantation. Catheter maintenance days were calculated and catheter-related complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The procedural success rate was 99.3%. In total, 270 TIVAPs were implanted in 270 patients, of which 150 remained functional at the end of the study period. The total catheter maintenance days was 77 543 days, and the mean catheter indwelling duration was 287 ± 207 days. In 20 (7.4%) patients, TIVAP-related complications occurred during the follow-up period, resulting in a postprocedural complication rate of 0.26 incidences per 1000 catheter days. No significant relationship was observed between complications and gender (p = 0.188), age (p = 0.528), body mass index (p = 0.547), the type of primary malignancy (p = 0.914), or between the left and right basilic veins (p = 0.319).

CONCLUSION

Real-time ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance provides a safe method for TIVAP implantation through the basilic vein, with a high technical success rate and few device-related complications.

Incidence of and risk factors for totally implantable vascular access device complications in patients with gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis

Totally implantable vascular access devices (TIVADs) are often used to administer chemotherapy by prolonged intravenous infusion. The objective of the present study was to investigate the incidence of long-term complications and identify risk factors associated with TIVAD placement in patients with gastric cancer. A total of 121 patients with gastric cancer who had undergone 150 TIVAD placement procedures for chemotherapy or supportive care were enrolled in the present retrospective cohort study. A number of risk factors were analyzed, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, history of thrombosis, body mass index, disease stage, and site and purpose of TIVAD. In total, 40 TIVADs (26.7%) developed long-term complications, of which 27 (18.0%) were infections, seven (4.7%) were catheter-related deep vein thrombosis (CR-DVT), and six (4.0%) were obstructions. Chemotherapy was associated with an increased rate of infectious adverse events (odds ratio 2.925; 95% CI, 1.104-7.750; P=0.031) according to the multivariate analysis. CR-DVT occurred more frequently in upper arm ports than in chest wall ports; however, this difference was not statistically significant (7.5 vs. 0.0%; P=0.084) according to the univariable analysis. All CR-DVTs developed in the upper arm sites. Chemotherapy and the upper arm site were associated with long-term complications in patients with TIVAD. However, further studies are needed to confirm the findings of the present study and to determine the reasons for the high incidence of long-term complications in these patients.

Arm port vs chest port: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques.

Methods

We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, intra-operative complications, mechanical complications, conversion rate, early port removal, and operating time.

Results

Thirteen comparative studies including 3,896 patients (2,176 for chest ports, and 1,720 for arm ports) were identified. The present study showed that arm port was associated with higher procedure conversion rate (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; odd ratios [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.46; p<0.001), but lower incidence of intra-operative complications (1.38% in chest port group and 0.41% in arm port group; OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07-5.29; p=0.03). There were no between-group differences with respect to total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, mechanical complications, early port removal, and operating time. Subgroup analysis of patients under 60 years revealed that no significant difference was detected in intra-operative events (1.19% in chest port group and 0.02% in arm port group, OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.74-9.08; p<0.14), indicating that age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events. Sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions of all endpoints of interest.

Conclusion

Arm port is associated with higher procedure conversion rate, but lower incidence of intra-operative complications, and age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events.

Comparison of complications between peripheral arm ports and central chest ports: A meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare peripheral arm ports versus central chest ports in complication rates.

BACKGROUND

Late complications of arm ports versus chest ports, including catheter-related infection, venous thrombosis and catheter obstruction, remain controversial.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis conducted following the Cochrane handbook.

DATA SOURCES

Studies published between 1950-August 2017 were searched through Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane library.

REVIEW METHODS

Two authors independently searched the eligible studies and extracted the data. Studies reporting complications of arm ports compared with chest ports, published in full texts and abstracts, were included. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We did subgroup analyses according to cancer type, age, follow-up and anticoagulant. Relative ratios were calculated with different models.

RESULTS

A total of 15 articles covering 3,524 tumour patients met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in catheter-related infection and catheter obstruction between arm ports and chest ports. After reducing the high heterogeneity, no difference was observed in thrombosis overall; however, arm ports had a lower thrombosis rate than chest ports in patients with head and neck cancer, while a higher thrombosis rate was observed in patients <60 years old or follow up ≥1 year. Further studies are needed in venous thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Arm ports are a safe option beside chest ports for adult patients with malignancy, especially in patients with head-neck cancer or breast cancer. Patients should be well informed of the advantages and disadvantages of different vascular access devices and provided a choice.

Comparison of three types of central venous catheters in patients with malignant tumor receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVCs) have been an effective access for chemotherapy instead of peripherally intravenous catheters. There were limited studies on the choices and effects of different types of CVCs for chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the complications, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction of three commonly used CVCs for chemotherapy, such as implanted venous port, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and external non-tunneled central venous catheters (NTCs).

METHODS

A double-center prospective cohort study was carried out from March 2014 to December 2016. Catheterization situation, complications, catheter maintenance, cost, and patients' quality of life and satisfaction were recorded, investigated, and analyzed. Forty-five ports, 60 PICCs and 40 NTCs were included. All the CVCs were followed up to catheter removal.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in catheterization success rates between port and PICC. NTC had less success rate by one puncture compared with port. Ports had fewer complications compared with PICCs and NTCs. The complication rates of ports, PICCs and NTCs were 2.2%, 40%, and 27.5%, respectively. If the chemotherapy process was <12 months, NTCs cost least, and the cost of port was much higher than PICC and NTC. When the duration time was longer than 12 months, the cost of port had no difference with the cost of PICC. Quality of life and patients' satisfaction of port group were significantly higher than the other two groups.

CONCLUSION

Although port catheterization costs more and needs professional medical staff and strict operational conditions, ports have fewer complications and higher quality of life and patients' satisfaction than PICCs and NTCs. Therefore, not following consideration of the economic factor, we recommend port as a safe and an effective chemotherapy access for cancer patients, especially for whom needing long chemotherapy process.