PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for the development of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) in the forearm, and to analyze the effect of prophylaxis and treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 200 patients (94 men, 106 women, mean age 57.7 +/-14 y) with TIVAP implantation in the forearm between 3/2010 and 11/2010. Type, number of punctures and sonographically defined diameter of the accessed vein were analyzed. Chemotherapy administered prior to the implantation procedure and history of thrombo-embolic events were assessed. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis (TEP) following port implantation and treatment as well as course of CRT were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (10.5%) were diagnosed with CRT. Accessed vessels and mean diameter were basilic (n=150, 3.7 mm), brachial (n=39, 3.5 mm) and cephalic (n=11, 3.5 mm) vein. Neither type nor vessel diameter had effect on CRT development (P>.05). Implantation in the left forearm resulted in a significantly higher rate of CRT (P=.04). Ninety-five patients (47.5%) received chemotherapy and 30 patients (15.0%) had a history of thrombosis prior to implantation; both had no effect on development of CRT. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was prescribed in 94/200 patients (47.0%) and had no effect on development of CRT (P>.05). Therapeutic anticoagulation with LMWH resulted in clinical improvement in 12/21 patients (57.4%). CONCLUSIONS: TIVAPs of the forearm may be associated with a certain rate of early and late CRT. The simplest vein to puncture should be selected for vascular access. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis appears to be rather ineffective for prevention of CRT.
PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for the development of catheter-related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) in the forearm, and to analyze the effect of prophylaxis and treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 200 patients (94 men, 106 women, mean age 57.7 +/-14 y) with TIVAP implantation in the forearm between 3/2010 and 11/2010. Type, number of punctures and sonographically defined diameter of the accessed vein were analyzed. Chemotherapy administered prior to the implantation procedure and history of thrombo-embolic events were assessed. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis (TEP) following port implantation and treatment as well as course of CRT were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (10.5%) were diagnosed with CRT. Accessed vessels and mean diameter were basilic (n=150, 3.7 mm), brachial (n=39, 3.5 mm) and cephalic (n=11, 3.5 mm) vein. Neither type nor vessel diameter had effect on CRT development (P>.05). Implantation in the left forearm resulted in a significantly higher rate of CRT (P=.04). Ninety-five patients (47.5%) received chemotherapy and 30 patients (15.0%) had a history of thrombosis prior to implantation; both had no effect on development of CRT. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was prescribed in 94/200 patients (47.0%) and had no effect on development of CRT (P>.05). Therapeutic anticoagulation with LMWH resulted in clinical improvement in 12/21 patients (57.4%). CONCLUSIONS: TIVAPs of the forearm may be associated with a certain rate of early and late CRT. The simplest vein to puncture should be selected for vascular access. Thrombo-embolic prophylaxis appears to be rather ineffective for prevention of CRT.
Authors: Jan Peter Goltz; Bernhard Petritsch; Johannes Kirchner; Dietbert Hahn; Ralph Kickuth Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jonathan Nadjiri; Tobias Geith; Tobias Waggershauser; Stephan Forster; Philipp Paprottka Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 3.240