| Literature DB >> 30885278 |
Jungang Hu1, Xu Zhu1, Xiaodong Wang2, Guang Cao1, Xiao Wang3, Renjie Yang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The technique for arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is not standardized which limits its widely application. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term functionality and complications of port-catheter system using percutaneous unilateral trans-femoral implantation with coil only fixed-catheter-tip method.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral artery; Fixed catheter tip; Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy; Hepatic metastasis; Hepatic tumor; Interventional oncology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30885278 PMCID: PMC6423799 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0202-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Clinical characteristics of patients underwent percutaneous port-catheter system Implantation
| Characteristics | Numbers |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 138 (67.3%) |
| Female | 67 (32.7%) |
| Age (y) | 59.1 ± 11.2 |
| Performance status | |
| 0 | 149 (72.7%) |
| 1 | 43 (21.0%) |
| 2 | 13 (6.3%) |
| Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma | 70 (34.1%) |
| Primary liver cancer | 55 (26.8%) |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 15 (7.3%) |
| Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma | 39 (19.0%) |
| Mixed type | 1 (0.5%) |
| Metastatic liver cancer | 80 (39.0%) |
| Colorectal cancer | 51 (24.9%) |
| Gallbladder cancer | 18 (8.8%) |
| Gastric cancer | 7 (3.4%) |
| Esophageal cancer | 2 (1.0%) |
| Pancreatic cancer | 2 (1.0%) |
Fig.1a. Schematic of percutaneous implantation of side-hole port-catheter system with coil-fixed-catheter-tip. CA = coeliac axis; CHA = common hepatic artery; GDA = gastroduodenal artery; PHA = proper hepatic artery; RGA = right gastric artery; SpA = splenic artery. b. Distal part of the indwelling catheter with side hole (white arrowhead) 5 cm to catheter tip
Fig. 2Location of skin access site and implanted port. a. Needle tip indicates skin incision access site ~ 1 cm above inguinal skin fold; b. Forcep head tip (same site as needle tip) indicates skin incision site with fluoroscopic image. c, d. Implanted port situated 2 cm medial to the antero-superior iliac crest, the lowest loop of the indwelling catheter (yellow dotted line) located above the inguinal site (c), and at the upper half portion of femur head (white arrowhead) on fluoroscopic image
Fig. 3Embolization of extrahepatic arteries and Hepatic artery redistribution embolization. a. Selective right gastric arteriogram from left hepatic artery shows right gastric artery (white arrows), embolized with microcoils; b. Left hepatic arteriogram showed accessory left gastric artery (black arrows) arising from left hepatic artery; c. Accessory left gastric artery (black arrows) was selectively catheterized and embolized with coils; d. Proper hepatic arteriogram shows whole hepatic artery without extrahepatic supplies. Black arrowheads refer to coils embolized in the accessory left gastric artery and right gastric artery. e. Celiac arteriogram indicates replaced left hepatic artery (black arrows) arising from left gastric artery. Black dotted arrows indicate right gastric artery. f. Replaced left hepatic artery (black arrows) selectively catheterized and embolized with microcoils. Right gastric artery was embolized with microcoils (black dotted arrow). g. Proper hepatic arteriogram from side hole (black arrowhead) of indwelling catheter shows whole hepatic arterial flow including right hepatic artery and the redistributed left hepatic artery (black arrows). h. CBCT-proper hepatic arteriogram shows contrast enhancement of the entire liver
Fig.4a. Fluoroscopic image shows microcatheter (black arrows) inserted coaxially through side hole (white arrowhead) of indwelling catheter to gastroduodenal artery outside distal part of indwelling catheter (white arrows); b. Fluoroscopic image shows that tip of indwelling catheter (black arrowhead) is fixed to gastroduodenal artery with microcoils (white arrowheads); c. Fluoroscopic image shows that microcatheter (black arrows) coaxially passed through inside lumen of indwelling catheter tip (black arrowhead); d. Microcoil (black arrows) embolized to occlude the inside lumen of the distal tip of the indwelling catheter (white arrowheads)
Fig. 5Pushing indwelling catheter careful 1-2 cm within femoral artery to obtain sufficient curve (b black arrowheads) of the catheter from a straight line (a white arrowheads) in the aort
Data of the port implantation procedure
| Procedures | Numbers |
|---|---|
| Success | 202 (98.5%) |
| Time for the procedure | 59.1 ± 10.2 min (45–107 min) |
| Failure | 3 (1.5%) |
| Reason of failure | |
| Stenosis of celiac trunk | 1 (0.5%) |
| Tortuosity of hepatic artery | 1 (0.5%) |
| Catheter dislocation | 1 (0.5%) |
| Introprocedure complications | |
| Migration of micro-coils into hepatic artery | 4 (2.0%) |
| Infection | 0 |
| Bleeding | 0 |
| Embolization of replaced hepatic arteries | 17 (8.4%) |
| Left hepatic artery | 3 (1.5%) |
| Right hepatic arteries | 14 (6.9%) |
| Embolization of accessory hepatic arteries | 22 (10.9%) |
| Left hepatic artery | 17 (8.4%) |
| Right hepatic arteries | 5 (2.5%) |
| Embolization of extrahepatic arteries | 69 (34.2%) |
| Right gastric artery | 60 (29.7%) |
| Accessory left gastric artery | 6 (3.0%) |
| Supraduodenal artery | 3 (1.5%) |
Catheter Complications and Salvage Treatments
| Complications | Patients | Time to complication diagnosis (months) | Salvage treatments | Result of salvage treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catheter dysfunction | ||||
| Hepatic arterial occlusion | 11 (5.4%) | 0.7–27.5 Median 6.3 | Thrombolysis via port in 6 patients | 3 Successful/3 Failure |
| Occlusion of catheter | 8 (4.0%) | 9.3–29.5 Median 19.1 | Thrombolysis via port in 3 patients | 1 Successful/2 Failure |
| Catheter dislocation | 2 (1.0%) | 1.3 and 3.2 | Blood flow redistribution embolization with coils in 1 patient | 1 Successful |
| Catheter irreversible dysfunction | ||||
| Hepatic arterial occlusion | 8 (4.0%) | 2.9–28.6 Median 12.7 | ||
| Catheter occlusion | 7 (3.5%) | 9.3–29.5 Median21.1 | ||
| Catheter dislocation | 1 (0.5%) | 1.3 | ||
Fig. 6Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative functionality duration of port-catheter using a fixed-catheter-tip. Dotted lines represent 95% Confidence interval
Reasons for Discontinuation of HAIC Treatment with port system
| Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation | Numbers |
|---|---|
| Catheter irreversible dysfunction | 16 (7.9%) |
| Catheter occlusion | 7 (3.5%) |
| Hepatic arterial occlusion | 8 (4.0%) |
| Catheter dislocation | 1 (0.5%) |
| Maintenance treatment without disease progression | 45 (22.3%) |
| Disease progression during HAIC | |
| Extrahepatic lesions progression | 38 (18.8%) |
| Regrowth of hepatic lesions | 32 (15.8%) |
| Grade 3/4 chemotherapy-related toxicity | 18 (8.9%) |
| Rejection of treatment continuation | 12 (5.9%) |
| Loss of follow up | 16 (7.9%) |
| Hepatic surgery | 4 (2.0%) |