Outcome of cephalic vein cut-down approach: A safe and feasible approach for totally implantable venous access device placement

Cephalic Vein Cut-Down Method for Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Single-Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

The widespread use of chemotherapies has increased the need for totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs). Previously, the subclavian puncture approach with the landmark technique was the most used implantation method; however, it has been related to early complications such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, and arterial puncture. Therefore, a safer implantation method is required. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the cephalic vein cut-down method used in our institution.

METHODS

Patients who underwent TIVAPs implantation using the cephalic vein cut-down method as the first choice between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included in this study. We retrospectively evaluated the technical success rates, operation times, and early complications.

RESULTS

This study included 221 adult patients (men, 129; women, 92), with a mean age of 68 ± 11 years. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 21 ± 4 kg/m2. A total of 213 patients (96.4%) had malignant tumors that required chemotherapy. The mean postoperative follow-up period was 659 ± 442 days (range, 5-1,698 days). A total of 127 patients (57.5%) died during the follow-up period. The technical success rate was 86.4% (191/221). There were 30 failures, 24 of which were converted to the subclavian vein puncture approach. The mean operation time was 53 ± 21 min. Early complications were observed in 4 (1.8%) patients, corresponding to an incidence of 0.028 complications/1,000 catheter days. One patient had an unintended arterial puncture; however, it was not a result of the cephalic vein cut-down method but a secondary result of the subclavian vein puncture. No complications of pneumothorax, hemothorax, or arterial puncture were observed with the cephalic vein cut-down method.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the cephalic vein cut-down method for TIVAPs had an acceptable success rate and fewer early complications than the conventional puncture techniques.

Success rate and safety of totally implantable access ports placed by the cephalic vein cutdown technique in oncological patients - a single-center study

INTRODUCTION

Totally implantable access ports (TIAPs) are commonly used in oncologic patients undergoing ongoing chemotherapy. The methods of choice for implantation are the subclavian vein puncture approach and the cephalic vein cutdown technique, followed by internal jugular vein access and external jugular vein access.

Cephalic Vein Cut Down for Total Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Retrospective Review of a Single Institution Series

Objective

The aim of this work was to describe the early and late success rates of cephalic vein cut down (CVC) in the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) for chemotherapy treatment in oncological patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 1 047 TIVAP performed in a private institution between 2008 and 2021. The CVC with pre-operative ultrasound (PUS) was the initial approach. All cephalic veins (CVs) were mapped pre-operatively with Doppler ultrasound, measuring their diameter and course in oncological patients who required a TIVAP. With a CV diameter ≥ 3.2 mm TIVAP was carried out by CVC; with CV diameter < 3.2 mm, subclavian vein puncture (SVP) was performed.

Results

1 047 TIVAPs were implanted in 998 patients. The mean age was 61.5 ± 11.5 years, 624 were women (65.5%). Male patients were significantly older and with a higher incidence of colonic, digestive system, and laryngeal cancer. Initially, TIVAP was indicated in 858 cases (82%) by CVC and 189 (18%) by SVP. The success rate was 98.5% for CVC and 98.4% for SVP. There were no complications for CVC (0%) but five early complications (2.5%) in the SVP group. The rates of late complications were 4.4% in the CVC group and 5.0% in the SVP group, foreign body infection being the most frequent (57.5% of the cases) (p = .85).

Conclusion

The CVC or SVP using PUS for TIVAP deployment, performed through a single incision, is a safe and effective technique. This open but minimally invasive technique should be considered in oncological patients.

Forty years after the first totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) implant: the pure surgical cut-down technique only avoids immediate complications that can be fatal

Aim

Even though TIVADs have been implanted for a long time, immediate complications are still occurring. The aim of this work was to review different techniques of placing TIVAD implants to evaluate the aetiology of immediate complications.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The patient numbers, number of implanted devices, specialists involved, implant techniques, implant sites and immediate complication onsets were studied.

Results

Of the 1256 manuscripts reviewed, 36 were eligible for inclusion in the study, for a total of 17,388 patients with equivalent TIVAD implantation. A total of 2745 patients (15.8%) were treated with a surgical technique and 14,643 patients (84.2%) were treated with a percutaneous technique. Of the 2745 devices (15.8%) implanted by a surgical technique, 1721 devices (62.7%) were placed in the cephalic vein (CFV). Of the 14,643 implants (84.2%) placed with a percutaneous technique, 5784 devices (39.5%) were placed in the internal jugular vein (IJV), and 5321 devices (36.3%) were placed in the subclavian vein (SCV). The number of immediate complications in patients undergoing surgical techniques was 32 (1.2%) HMMs. In patients treated with a percutaneous technique, the number of total complications were 333 (2.8%): 71 PNX (0.5%), 2 HMT (0.01%), 175 accidental artery punctures AAP (1.2%) and 85 HMM (0.6%). No mortality was reported with either technique.

Conclusion

The percutaneous approach is currently the most commonly used technique to implant a TIVAD, but despite specialist’s best efforts, immediate complications are still occurring. Surgical cut-down, 40 years after the first implant, is still the only technique that can avoid all of the immediate complications that can be fatal.

Comparison between ultrasound-guided TIVAD via the right innominate vein and the right internal jugular vein approach

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of right internal jugular vein (IJV) approach and right innominate vein (INV) approach for US-guided totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs), and to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches.

METHODS

Six hundred and nineteen adult patients had long-term infusion and chemotherapy needs and inconvenience of peripheral venous infusion. Right INV approach was used to implant 339 cases of TIVADs, and right IJV approach was used to implant 280 cases of TIVADs. The success rate of one-time catheterization and the incidence of complications in the two groups were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients were successfully implanted in TIVAD. The success rates of one-time puncture in INV group and IJV approach group were 98.53% (334/339) and 95.36% (267/280), respectively. There was significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.020). The incidence of perioperative complications and long-term complications in the right INV group were 1.18% (4/339) and 3.54% (12/339), respectively, while those in the right IJV group were 1.43% (4280) and 3.93% (11280). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perioperative or long-term complications between the two groups (P = 0.785, P = 0.799, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided TIVADs via the right INV approach and the right IJV approach are both safe and reliable. The right INV approach improves the one-time puncture success rate, as long as the technique is properly operated, serious complications rarely occur.

Ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access ports via the right innominate vein: a new approach for patients with breast cancer

Background

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation via the right innominate vein in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Sixty-seven breast cancer patients underwent ultrasound-guided implantation of TIVAPs via the right innominate vein for administration of chemotherapy. Clinical data including technical success, success rate for the first attempt, periprocedural, and postoperative complications were recorded and retrospectively studied.

Results

All patients underwent successful surgery. The success rate of the first attempt was 95.52% (64/67). The operation time was 28 to 45 min, with an average of 36 ± 6 min. Periprocedural complications included artery punctures in 1 (1.50%, 1/67) patient. Prior to this study, the mean TIVAP time was 257 ± 3 days (range 41 to 705 days). The rate of postoperative complications was 4.48% (3/67), including catheter-related infections in 1 case and fibrin sheath formation in 2 cases. Up to the present study, three people had unplanned port withdrawal due to complications, and the TIVAPs for 25 patients were still in normal use.

Conclusions

The success rate of ultrasound-guided TIVAPs via the right innominate vein is high with low complications, thus safe and feasible. This technique can provide a new option for chemotherapy of breast cancer 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.

Percutaneous versus Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement

The superiority of surgical cut-down of the cephalic vein versus percutaneous catheterization of the subclavian vein for the insertion of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) is debated. To compare the safety and efficacy of surgical cut-down versus percutaneous placement of TIVADs. This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of oncologic patients who had TIVADs implanted by 14 surgeons. Primary outcomes were inability to place TIVAD by the primary approach and postoperative complications within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included operative time. Two hundred and forty-seven (55.9%) percutaneous and 195 (44.1%) cephalic cut-down patients were identified. The 30-day complication rate was 5.2 per cent: 14 patients (5.7%) in the percutaneous and nine (4.6%) in the cut-down group. The technique was not a significant predictor of having a 30-day complication (odds ratio = 0.820; 95% confidence interval 0.342–1.879). Implantation failure was observed in 16 percutaneous patients (6.5%) and 28 cut-down patients (14.4%) (adjusted odds ratio for cephalic vs cut-down = 2.387; 95% confidence interval 1.275–4.606). The median operative time for percutaneous patients was 46 minutes (interquartile range = 35, 59) versus 37.5 minutes (interquartile range = 30, 49) for cut-down patients(P < 0.0001). Both the percutaneous and cut-down technique are safe and effective for TIVAD implantation. Operative times were shorter and the odds of implantation failure higher for cephalic cut-down. As implantation failure is common, surgeons should familiarize themselves with both techniques.