Literature DB >> 24659216

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

Roberto Biffi, Adriana Toro, Simonetta Pozzi, Isidoro Di Carlo.   

Abstract

The first placement of a totally implantable central venous access device (TIVAD) was performed in 1982 at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston by John Niederhuber, using the cephalic vein—exposed by surgical cut-down—as route of access to central veins. After that, TIVADs proved to be safe and effective for repeated administration of drugs, blood, nutrients,and blood drawing for testing in many clinical settings, especially in the oncologic applications. They allow for administration of hyperosmolar solutions, extreme pH drugs, and vescicant chemotherapeutic agents,thus improving venous access reliability and overall patients’ quality of life. Despite the availability of a variety of devices, each showing different features and performances, many issues are still unsolved. The aim of this review article is to point out what has changed since the first implant of a TIVAD, and what it is still matter of debate, thus needing more investigation. Topics analyzed here include materials, choice of the veins and techniques of implantation, role of ultrasound (US) guidance in central venous access, position of catheter tip assessment, TIVAD-related infection and thrombosis, and quality of life issues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24659216     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-014-2208-1

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


  49 in total

1.  Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Mariantina Fragou; Andreas Gravvanis; Vasilios Dimitriou; Apostolos Papalois; Gregorios Kouraklis; Andreas Karabinis; Theodosios Saranteas; John Poularas; John Papanikolaou; Periklis Davlouros; Nicos Labropoulos; Dimitrios Karakitsos
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.598

2.  Satisfaction versus dissatisfaction with venous access devices in outpatient oncology: a pilot study.

Authors:  C Chernecky
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

3.  Central vascular access devices in oncology and hematology considered from a different point of view: how do patients experience their vascular access ports?

Authors:  Godelieve A Goossens; Marc Vrebos; Marguerite Stas; Ivo De Wever; Lutgarde Frederickx
Journal:  J Infus Nurs       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb

4.  epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England.

Authors:  R J Pratt; C M Pellowe; J A Wilson; H P Loveday; P J Harper; S R L J Jones; C McDougall; M H Wilcox
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 5.  Systemic anticoagulant prophylaxis for central catheter-associated venous thrombosis in cancer patients.

Authors:  Alexandre Chan; Andrea Iannucci; William E Dager
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 3.154

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

Authors:  Jo Caers; Christel Fontaine; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Johan De Mey; Gerrit Ponnet; Chris Oost; Jan Lamote; Jacques De Greve; Benjamin Van Camp; Patrick Lacor
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-11-05       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients' quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial.

Authors:  Roberto Biffi; Franco Orsi; Simonetta Pozzi; Andrea Maldifassi; Davide Radice; Nicole Rotmensz; Maria Giulia Zampino; Nicola Fazio; Giulia Peruzzotti; Florence Didier
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-08-28       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients.

Authors:  Melina Verso; Giancarlo Agnelli
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience.

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Marcy; Nicolas Magné; Pierre Castadot; Antoine Italiano; Nicolas Amoretti; Cédric Bailet; Franck Bentolila; Jean-Claude Gallard
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Totally implanted venous access devices implanted in the saphenous vein. Relation between the reservoir site and comfort/discomfort of the patients.

Authors:  Adriana Toro; Maurizio Mannino; Giovanni Cappello; Sofia Celeste; Stefano Cordio; Isidoro Di Carlo
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 1.466

View more
  12 in total

1.  Improving cancer patients' knowledge about totally implantable access port: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Michela Piredda; Valentina Biagioli; Diana Giannarelli; Daniele Incletoli; Francesca Grieco; Massimiliano Carassiti; Maria Grazia De Marinis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Retrospective outcome analysis of rates and types of complications after 8654 minimally invasive radiological port implantations via the subclavian vein without ultrasound guidance.

Authors:  Karolin J Paprottka; Jana Voelklein; Tobias Waggershauser; Maximilian F Reiser; Philipp M Paprottka
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  The Totally Implantable Venous Access Device with Occurrence of Pneumothorax Still Remains an Issue.

Authors:  Isidoro Di Carlo; Adriana Toro
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan.

Authors:  Masatoshi Shiono; Shin Takahashi; Masanobu Takahashi; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Chikashi Ishioka
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Cost and morbidity analysis of chest port insertion in adults: Outpatient clinic versus operating room placement.

Authors:  Claudio F Feo; Giorgio C Ginesu; Alessandro Bellini; Giuseppe Cherchi; Antonio M Scanu; Maria Laura Cossu; Alessandro Fancellu; Alberto Porcu
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2017-07-25

6.  Removal of totally implanted venous access ports for suspected infection in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study.

Authors:  Marie Lecronier; Sandrine Valade; Naike Bigé; Nicolas de Prost; Damien Roux; David Lebeaux; Eric Maury; Elie Azoulay; Alexandre Demoule; Martin Dres
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 6.925

7.  Late complications of totally implantable venous access ports in patients with cancer: Risk factors and related nursing strategies.

Authors:  Xin-Yan Yu; Jia-Lan Xu; Dan Li; Zi-Fang Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  PICC-PORT: Valid indication to placement in patient with results of extensive skin burns of the neck and chest in oncology. The first case in the scientific literature.

Authors:  D Merlicco; M Lombardi; M C Fino
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2020-02-19

9.  Validation of a questionnaire of knowledge and attitudes about the subcutaneous venous reservoir in nursing.

Authors:  Roberto Raña-Rocha; Ignacio López-de-Ullibarri; María-Jesús Movilla-Fernández; Carmen Coronado Carvajal
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2020-04-17

10.  Reply on "What Is the Role of Surgeons When Implanting a Totally Implantable Venous Access Device to Prevent Immediate Complications?".

Authors:  Eun-Joo Jung; Dae-Yong Hwang
Journal:  Ann Coloproctol       Date:  2015-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.