BACKGROUND:Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are valuable instruments in case prolonged intravenous therapy is required, but implantation and use of these devices are associated with complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative and long-term complications associated with TIVADs. In addition, we compared two different types of TIVADs with respect to implantation, care protocol and patients' comfort. METHODS: In a retrospective study perioperative and long-term complications in a general oncology population were analysed. In a prospective randomized study comparison of two types of TIVADs was carried out. RESULTS:Perioperative complications occurred in 27 (21.4%) of 126 implanted TIVADs: catheter malposition (16.7%) in 21 patients, pneumothorax (0.8%) in one and haemorrhage (4.0%) in five. Long-term complications appeared in 31 (25.2%) out of 123 TIVADs: thrombosis in 9 (7.3%), especially associated with malposition of the tip of the catheter; infection in 10 (8.1%); extravasation in 2 (1.6%); migration of the catheter tip in 6 (4.8%); pain at reservoir in 3 (2.4%) and inaccessibility of the port in 1 (0.8%). No significant differences were found with respect to implantation, care accessibility and patients' comfort between the two TIVADs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TIVADs is associated with some risk of serious perioperative and long-term complications. In case of thrombotic complications these systems can be saved with appropriate treatment. Correct positioning of the catheter tip is essential to prevent thrombotic complications. In case of TIVAD-related infectious complications, the possibility of saving the TIVAD depends on the causative microorganism and type of infection. Furthermore, to increase patients' satisfaction with TIVADs they should be well informed about the surgical procedure and possible disadvantages of these devices.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) are valuable instruments in case prolonged intravenous therapy is required, but implantation and use of these devices are associated with complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative and long-term complications associated with TIVADs. In addition, we compared two different types of TIVADs with respect to implantation, care protocol and patients' comfort. METHODS: In a retrospective study perioperative and long-term complications in a general oncology population were analysed. In a prospective randomized study comparison of two types of TIVADs was carried out. RESULTS: Perioperative complications occurred in 27 (21.4%) of 126 implanted TIVADs: catheter malposition (16.7%) in 21 patients, pneumothorax (0.8%) in one and haemorrhage (4.0%) in five. Long-term complications appeared in 31 (25.2%) out of 123 TIVADs: thrombosis in 9 (7.3%), especially associated with malposition of the tip of the catheter; infection in 10 (8.1%); extravasation in 2 (1.6%); migration of the catheter tip in 6 (4.8%); pain at reservoir in 3 (2.4%) and inaccessibility of the port in 1 (0.8%). No significant differences were found with respect to implantation, care accessibility and patients' comfort between the two TIVADs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TIVADs is associated with some risk of serious perioperative and long-term complications. In case of thrombotic complications these systems can be saved with appropriate treatment. Correct positioning of the catheter tip is essential to prevent thrombotic complications. In case of TIVAD-related infectious complications, the possibility of saving the TIVAD depends on the causative microorganism and type of infection. Furthermore, to increase patients' satisfaction with TIVADs they should be well informed about the surgical procedure and possible disadvantages of these devices.
Authors: Martin Jonczyk; Bernhard Gebauer; Roman Rotzinger; Dirk Schnapauff; Bernd Hamm; Federico Collettini Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: C Pulcini; T Couadau; E Bernard; A Lorthat-Jacob; T Bauer; E Cua; V Mondain; R-M Chichmanian; P Dellamonica; P-M Roger Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Eva Johansson; Magnus Björkholm; Hjördis Björvell; Robert Hast; Rabbe Takolander; Per Olofsson; Lars Backman; Eddie Weitzberg; Per Engervall Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2003-11-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: E Van Cutsem; P M Hoff; P Harper; R M Bukowski; D Cunningham; P Dufour; U Graeven; J Lokich; S Madajewicz; J A Maroun; J L Marshall; E P Mitchell; G Perez-Manga; P Rougier; W Schmiegel; J Schoelmerich; A Sobrero; R L Schilsky Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-03-22 Impact factor: 7.640