Literature DB >> 15538639

Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports.

Jo Caers1, Christel Fontaine, Vincent Vinh-Hung, Johan De Mey, Gerrit Ponnet, Chris Oost, Jan Lamote, Jacques De Greve, Benjamin Van Camp, Patrick Lacor.   

Abstract

AIMS: The use of subcutaneous infusion ports has become standard practice to provide a long-term venous access in oncological patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the different complications of infusion ports in our population and to identify predisposing factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 437 patients who were followed at the Oncology/Haematology Department of our hospital. Of these patients, there were 370 (84.4%) with solid tumours and 58 (13.2%) with haematological disease. The position of the catheter tip was evaluated by reviewing the available chest radiographs or phlebographies. MAIN
RESULTS: Analysis of the records showed that 346 patients (79.17%) had no complications. The most common complications after implantation were thrombosis (8.46%), catheter dysfunction (4.8%) and infections (4.4%). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that catheter tip positioning was the most important predisposing risk factor for thrombosis. Catheter tips positioned in the brachiocephalic vein or in the cranial part of the superior vena cava were associated with a high risk of thrombosis. Other significant risk factors were gender and initial diagnosis. Female patients and patients with lung cancer also had an elevated risk of developing a thrombosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other reports, we noted a higher rate of thrombosis and port dysfunction. Since catheter tip position was a predisposing factor for developing a thrombosis, correct catheter position has to be ensured during placement. Prophylactic antithrombotic treatment might be beneficial in the event of failure to position the catheter correctly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15538639     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-004-0723-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  28 in total

1.  [Implanted venous access system in oncology. Review of 296 cases].

Authors:  C Guenier; J M Nogaret; J Ferreira; I Lorent; J C Pector
Journal:  Ann Chir       Date:  1990

2.  Totally implanted device for long-term intravenous chemotherapy: experience in 123 adult patients with solid neoplasms.

Authors:  J Puig-la Calle; S López Sánchez; E Piedrafita Serra; L Allende Honorato; V Artigas Raventós; J Puig la Calle
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.454

3.  No effect of nadroparin prophylaxis in the prevention of central venous catheter (CVC)-associated thrombosis in bone marrow transplant recipients.

Authors:  S W Lagro; L F Verdonck; I H Borel Rinkes; A W Dekker
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.483

4.  Central venous thrombosis: an early and frequent complication in cancer patients bearing long-term silastic catheter. A prospective study.

Authors:  M De Cicco; M Matovic; L Balestreri; G Panarello; D Fantin; S Morassut; V Testa
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 3.944

5.  Venographic surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology patients.

Authors:  M K Horne; D J May; H R Alexander; E P Steinhaus; E D Whitman; R C Chang; J L Doppman
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days.

Authors:  R Biffi; F de Braud; F Orsi; S Pozzi; S Mauri; A Goldhirsch; F Nolè; B Andreoni
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis.

Authors:  R E Schwarz; J S Groeger; D G Coit
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Subclavian vein thrombosis in patients treated with infusion chemotherapy for advanced malignancy.

Authors:  J J Lokich; B Becker
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1983-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Prevention of central venous catheter associated thrombosis using minidose warfarin in patients with haematological malignancies.

Authors:  P Boraks; J Seale; J Price; G Bass; M Ethell; D Keeling; P Mahendra; T Baglin; R Marcus
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 6.998

10.  Complications of indwelling venous access devices in cancer patients.

Authors:  B J Eastridge; A T Lefor
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  35 in total

1.  Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems.

Authors:  Ulf K M Teichgräber; Stephan Kausche; Sebastian N Nagel; Bernhard Gebauer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Chylothorax associated with thrombosis of the cranial vena cava.

Authors:  Ameet Singh; Brigitte A Brisson
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.008

3.  A team-based multidisciplinary approach to managing peripherally inserted central catheter complications in high-risk haematological patients: a prospective study.

Authors:  Natalia Curto-García; Julio García-Suárez; Marta Callejas Chavarria; Juan José Gil Fernández; Yolanda Martín Guerrero; Elena Magro Mazo; Shelly Marcellini Antonio; Luis Miguel Juárez; Isabel Gutierrez; Juan José Arranz; Irene Montalvo; Carmen Elvira; Pilar Domínguez; María Teresa Díaz; Carmen Burgaleta
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-05-03       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Is there any effect of first-day usage of a totally implantable venous access device on complications?

Authors:  Hasan Karanlik; Hatice Odabas; Ilknur Yildirim; Ilker Ozgur; Berkay Kilic; Fatma Sen; Sidika Kurul; Adnan Aydiner
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-25       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 5.  Focus on peripherally inserted central catheters in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Paolo Cotogni; Mauro Pittiruti
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-11-04

6.  [Indications, technique and complications of port implantation].

Authors:  L Haeder; J Jähne
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 7.  Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved?

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Adriana Toro; Simonetta Pozzi; Isidoro Di Carlo
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Totally Implantable Central Venous Port Catheters: Radiation Exposure as a Function of Puncture Site and Operator Experience.

Authors:  Martin Jonczyk; Bernhard Gebauer; Roman Rotzinger; Dirk Schnapauff; Bernd Hamm; Federico Collettini
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

9.  Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy.

Authors:  Ulf K Teichgräber; Robert Pfitzmann; Herbert A F Hofmann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  It appears to be safe to start chemotherapy on the day of implantation through subcutaneous venous port catheters in inpatient setting.

Authors:  Nuriye Yildirim Ozdemir; Hüseyin Abali; Berna Oksüzoğlu; Burçin Budakoğlu; Ilkay Akmangit; Nurullah Zengin
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-09-02       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.