Masatoshi Shiono1,2, Shin Takahashi1,2, Masanobu Takahashi1,2, Takuhiro Yamaguchi3, Chikashi Ishioka4,5. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. 2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Institute of Development, Aging, and Cancer, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 4-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi 1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan. chikashi@tohoku.ac.jp. 5. Department of Clinical Oncology, Institute of Development, Aging, and Cancer, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 4-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan. chikashi@tohoku.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a nationwide questionnaire-based survey to understand the current situation regarding central venous port implantation in order to identify the ideal procedure. METHODS: Questionnaire sheets concerning the number of implantation procedures and the incidence of complications for all procedures completed in 2012 were sent to 397 nationwide designated cancer care hospitals in Japan in June 2013. Venipuncture sites were categorized as chest, neck, upper arm, forearm, and others. Methods were categorized as landmark, cut-down, ultrasound-mark, real-time ultrasound guided, venography, and other groups. RESULTS: We received 374 responses (11,693 procedures) from 153 centers (38.5 %). The overall complication rates were 7.4 % for the chest (598/8,097 cases); 6.8 % for the neck (157/2325); 5.2 % for the upper arm (54/1,033); 7.3 % for the forearm (9/124); and 6.1 % for the other groups (7/114). Compared to the chest group, only the upper arm group showed a significantly lower incidence of complications (P = 0.010), and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.51-0.91; P = 0.008) also showed similar findings. Real-time ultrasound-guided puncture was most commonly used in the upper arm group (83.8 %), followed by the neck (69.8 %), forearm (53.2 %), chest (41.8 %), and other groups (34.2 %). CONCLUSION: Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation.
BACKGROUND: We conducted a nationwide questionnaire-based survey to understand the current situation regarding central venous port implantation in order to identify the ideal procedure. METHODS: Questionnaire sheets concerning the number of implantation procedures and the incidence of complications for all procedures completed in 2012 were sent to 397 nationwide designated cancer care hospitals in Japan in June 2013. Venipuncture sites were categorized as chest, neck, upper arm, forearm, and others. Methods were categorized as landmark, cut-down, ultrasound-mark, real-time ultrasound guided, venography, and other groups. RESULTS: We received 374 responses (11,693 procedures) from 153 centers (38.5 %). The overall complication rates were 7.4 % for the chest (598/8,097 cases); 6.8 % for the neck (157/2325); 5.2 % for the upper arm (54/1,033); 7.3 % for the forearm (9/124); and 6.1 % for the other groups (7/114). Compared to the chest group, only the upper arm group showed a significantly lower incidence of complications (P = 0.010), and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.51-0.91; P = 0.008) also showed similar findings. Real-time ultrasound-guided puncture was most commonly used in the upper arm group (83.8 %), followed by the neck (69.8 %), forearm (53.2 %), chest (41.8 %), and other groups (34.2 %). CONCLUSION: Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central venous port; Chemotherapy; Supportive therapy
Authors: G S Patel; K Jain; R Kumar; A H Strickland; L Pellegrini; J Slavotinek; M Eaton; W McLeay; T Price; M Ly; S Ullah; B Koczwara; G Kichenadasse; C S Karapetis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: N S Cayne; T L Berland; C B Rockman; T S Maldonado; M A Adelman; G R Jacobowitz; P J Lamparello; F Mussa; S Bauer; S S Saltzberg; F J Veith Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2009-09-05 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: P-Y Marcy; E Chamorey; N Amoretti; K Benezery; R J Bensadoun; A Bozec; G Poissonnet; O Dassonville; M Rame; A Italiano; F Peyrade; F Brenac; J C Gallard Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 4.424
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