Literature DB >> 11030246

Longterm central venous access in gynecologic cancer patients.

V A Minassian1, A K Sood, P Lowe, J I Sorosky, A S Al-Jurf, R E Buller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the utility and safety of three different longterm indwelling intravenous catheters in patients with gynecologic malignancies. STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed of the records of all women with gynecologic malignancies who required longterm venous access catheters and ports between 1990 and 1997.
RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-eight women underwent placement of 308 indwelling catheters, of which 305 were available for analysis. Of those, 68 (22%) were Hickman catheters, 162 (53%) were infusaports, and 75 (25%) were Peripheral Access System (PAS) ports. Venous access was obtained percutaneously in 152 (50%) patients and by cutdown in 153 (50%). Prophylactic anticoagulation was used with 96 catheters (31%). Catheter placement was associated with 12 (4%) immediate complications and 87 (29%) delayed complications. The average duration of a catheter in place was 5.6 months for the Hickman, 12.5 months for the infusaport, and 16.0 months for the PAS port (p < 0.001). Bacteremia was more likely to develop in patients with Hickman catheters when compared with those with infusaports and PAS ports (19% versus 6% and 5%, respectively, p = 0.002). Thrombosis was significantly less likely to develop in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulation (11% versus 4%, p = 0.004). Overall, the complication rate was lower with cutdown versus percutaneous access (p = 0.004). There was no statistically significant difference between the frequency of complications when correlated with the stage of disease, patient age, body mass index, or type of malignancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Infusaports and PAS ports were associated with a lower risk of infection and have a longer life than Hickman catheters. The cutdown approach was associated with a lower complication rate. Low-dose prophylactic anticoagulation should be given to all patients with longterm central venous catheters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11030246     DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00690-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  6 in total

1.  Femoral Placement of Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports in Patients with Bilateral Breast Cancer.

Authors:  V Almasi-Sperling; S Hieber; J Lermann; O Strahl; M W Beckmann; W Lang; T A Sagban
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Clinical review and analysis of complications of totally implantable venous access devices for chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jung Tae Kim; Tae Yun Oh; Woon Ha Chang; Young Kyun Jeong
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2011-03-06       Impact factor: 3.064

3.  Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications: A single-institution retrospective analysis of 2,996 breast cancer patients.

Authors:  L I Ma; Yueping Liu; Jianxin Wang; Yuan Chang; Long Yu; Cuizhi Geng
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-01-07

4.  Functional evaluation of conventional 'Celsite' venous ports versus 'Vortex' ports with a tangential outlet: a prospective randomised pilot study.

Authors:  G A Goossens; G Verbeeck; P Moons; W Sermeus; I De Wever; M Stas
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 3.603

5.  The risk of bloodstream infection associated with totally implantable venous access ports in cancer patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Meng Jiang; Chang-Li Li; Chun-Qiu Pan; Li Yu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-05-02       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Complications from port-a-cath system implantation in adults with malignant tumors: A 10-year single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Yong Li; Jianxi Guo; Yanfang Zhang; Jian Kong
Journal:  J Interv Med       Date:  2021-12-09
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.