Safety of tunneled central venous catheters in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients with severe primary immunodeficiency diseases.

Tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) provide prolonged intravenous access for pediatric patients with severe primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, little is known about the epidemiology and clinical significance of TCVC-related morbidity in this particular patient group. We conducted the retrospective analysis of patients with severe PID who received percutaneous landmark-guided TCVC implantation prior to HSCT. We analyzed 92 consecutive TCVC implantations in 69 patients (median [interquartile range] age 3.0 [0-11] years) with severe combined immune deficiency (n = 39, 42.4%), chronic granulomatous disease (n = 17, 18.4%), and other rare PID syndromes (n = 36, 39.2%). The median length of TCVC observation was 144.1 (85.5-194.6) days with a total of 14,040 catheter days at risk (cdr). The overall rate of adverse events during catheter insertion was 17.4% (n = 16) and 25.0% during catheter dwell period (n = 23, catheter risk [CR] per 1000 cdr = 1.64). The most common complication was TCVC-related infection with an overall prevalence of 9.8% (n = 9, CR = 0.64), followed by late dislocation (n = 6, 6.5%, CR = 0.43), early dislocation (n = 4, 4.3%) and catheter dysfunction (n = 4, 4.3%, CR = 0.28). TCVCs are safe in children with severe PID undergoing HSCT with relatively low rates of TCVC-related infection.

Introduction

Primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID) comprise a wide spectrum of disorders, including more than 350 genetically defined inborn errors of adaptive and innate immunity [1]. Although the clinical presentation of PID is highly variable, many disorders are characterized by recurrent, serious infections, autoimmune dysregulation, and aberrant inflammation if not treated appropriately [2]. The management of PID depends on the type and severity of the underlying defect. Severe forms of PID such as severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) or chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) require cellular therapy including hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) [3]. The preparation for HSCT and the HSCT procedure itself involves the use of long-term, multilumen, tunneled central venous catheters (TCVCs) for administration of chemotherapy agents during conditioning, infusion of hematopoietic cells, and supportive care management including immunosuppressant agents, antibiotics, analgesics, blood components and parenteral nutrition [4, 5]. Nevertheless, to the profoundly vulnerable immunodepressed HSCT recipients, the TCVCs represents an additional source of morbidity, including procedural adverse events and infective and non-infective complications during catheter dwell period [6-9]. These TCVC-related complications may necessitate additional surgical interventions or culminate in premature catheter removal, both of which coincide with the risks of surgery and general anesthesia while also interrupting or prolonging therapy [7]. Further, it has been shown that infections at the time of HSCT are clearly associated with poorer survival if conditioning is needed [10]. Although the TCVC-related morbidity is highly recognized as a significant problem in pediatric HSCT recipients with severe PID, studies regarding adverse events and complications of TCVCs in this particular patient group are lacking. Therefore, we conducted an observational cohort study which aims to determine the incidence and types of procedural adverse events and dwell period catheter complications in pediatric patients with severe PID undergoing HSCT.

Patients and methods

Study population

In this retrospective, single-center observational study, all consecutive HSCT recipients between 0 and 20 years of age with severe PID who underwent implantation of TCVC at the University Medical Center of Freiburg between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2019 were included. Data on patient and device characteristics, procedural adverse events, and complications during catheter dwell period resulting in revisional surgery or premature removal were retrieved from the Patient Data Management System (PDMS). At the time of data extraction, one of the patients was seeking treatment. All extracted data were fully anonymized before access and subsequently analysis.

Preoperative evaluation and surgical technique of catheter placement

Preoperative work-up consisted of laboratory studies including coagulation tests. We did not routinely perform ultrasound imaging of the internal jugular vein and carotid artery prior to TCVC implantation. Provided the patient did not receive antibiotic therapy due to the immunodeficiency at the time of the operation, a single-shot prophylactic perioperative antibiotics (e.g. cefuroxim) was administered. In-line filters or anti-infective/microbial lock prophylaxis were not used. Real-time ultrasound guidance for puncture of the vein was not routinely utilized. The implantation was usually performed by surgical residents supervised by board certified pediatric surgeons. Anatomical landmarks and the adapted Seldinger technique were used for catheter cannulation [11]. All catheters were tunneled subcutaneously with the tissue ingrowth cuff positioned at the distal end of the tunnel. Positioning of the catheter tip was confirmed by fluoroscopy.

Definitions

Procedural adverse events were defined as undesirable conditions during catheter placement, such as complicated guide wire insertion, accidental arterial puncture, multiple unsuccessful venous cannulations, or need for conversion to venae section. Complications during catheter dwell period requiring catheter tube repositioning, catheter removal or exchange were analyzed. These complications included TCVC-related infection, catheter dysfunction/thrombosis, and early and late catheter dislocation presenting as malposition of the catheter tip. Tip malposition was defined as the position of the tube tip far beyond the right atrial entrance, e.g. within atrium itself (deep malposition), in the superior vena cava (high malposition) or in the ipsi- or contralateral internal jugular or subclavian vein (knocked over malposition). Early dislocation was defined as a catheter tip malposition within the first 7 postoperative days. Late catheter dislocations were classified as events occurring thereafter. Accidental catheter dislocation was also considered to be a dwell period complication. Catheter-related infections were defined as the presence of bacteremia (catheter-related bloodstream infections) and/or local skin inflammation (exit-site infections and/or tunnel infections) originating from the catheter. Catheter dysfunction was defined as an inability to administer the medication or inability to aspirate irrespective of cause (e.g. thrombosis, leakage with extravasation, avulsion of tube fragments).

Exclusion criteria

Dwell period complications which were treated conservatively or did not require catheter tube repositioning, removal or exchange were excluded from analysis.

Statistical analyses

Demographic, disease-related, and device-related variables were described using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The total number of catheter days at risk (cdr) was calculated as the total number of days from insertion to elective catheter removal or revisional surgery or premature catheter removal. The complication rate per 1000 cdr (CR) was calculated as 1000 times the number of complications, divided by the total number of cdr. Normality of data was evaluated by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests. Results for continuous non parametric data are expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]). For analyses of continuous variables the Mann-Whitney-U-test was used. All statistical tests were two-tailed and the tests were considered significant with p < 0.05.

Results

Patient and device characteristics

In total, this study included 92 consecutive catheter positioning procedures in 69 patients with severe PID considered for HSCT. The median age at the time of catheter implantation was 3.0 (0–11) years. The male/female ratio was 2.3 (48 boys and 21 girls). Of the 92 devices inserted, 51 (55.4%) were Groshong and 41 (44.6%) Hickman/Broviac catheters. Of these, TCVC was inserted only once in 49 (71.0%) of the patients, twice in 18 (26.1%) children, three and four times in one patient (1.45%), respectively. The internal jugular vein (n = 89, 96.7%) and the right side (n = 78, 84.8%) were most commonly used. The median time from TCVC implantation to day one of HSCT was 18.5 (13.4–28.6) days. The median length of TCVC observation was 144.1 (85.5–194.6) days and ranged between 5.2 and 588 days for a total of 14,040 cdr. Detailed patients and device characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients receiving 92 TCVC implantation.

Characteristics	Total
Number of implantations	n = 92
Age, y, Median (IQR)	3.0 (0–11)
Sex:
•- Male, No. (%)	65 (70.7%)
•- Female, No. (%)	27 (29.3%)
Diagnosis, No. (%)
•- Severe combined immunodeficiency	39 (42.4%)
•- Chronic granulomatous disease	17 (18.5%)
•- Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis	9 (9.8%)
•- IPEX syndrome	7 (7.6%)
•- LRBA deficiency	4 (4.3%)
•- Hyper IgM syndrome	4 (4.3%)
•- PNP deficiency	3 (3.3%)
•- CTLA4 deficiency	3 (3.3%)
•- Others	6 (6.5%)
Time to HSCT after TCVC implantation, d, Median (IQR)	18.5 (13.4–28.6)
Device type, No. (%)
•- Groshong	51 (55.4%)
•- Hickman/Broviac	41 (44.6%)
Tube size (French), No. (%)
•- ≤ 7.0	40 (43.5)
•- > 7.0	52 (56.5)
Venous access, No. (%)
•- Internal jugular vein	89 (96.7)
•- Subclavian vein	2 (2.2)
•- External jugular vein	1 (1.1)
Laterality, No. (%)
•- Right side	78 (84.8)
•- Left side	14 (15.82)
Catheter dwell time, d, Median (IQR), catheter days at risk (cdr), Sum	144.1 (85.5–194.6) 14,040

Abbreviations: IPEX syndrome: Immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked syndrome; LRBA deficiency: Lipopolysaccharide-responsive beige-like anchor protein deficiency; PNP deficiency: Purine nucleoside phosphorylase deficiency; CTLA4 deficiency: Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated Protein 4 deficiency; Other syndromes included Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome, Leukocyte adhesion deficiency, Activated PI3 Kinase Delta syndrome, Hoyeraal-Hreidarsson syndrome, Zinsser-Cole-Engman syndrome, Cartilage hair hypoplasia.

Procedural adverse events and dwell period complications

Overall, 16 (17.4%) adverse events during catheter placement were observed. Among them, complicated guide wire insertion after successful venous cannulation was the most common, with an overall rate of 7.6% (n = 7). Conversion to venous cut-down was necessary in 5 (5.4%) cases. No catheter insertion procedures were complicated by pneumothorax or hemothorax. No TCVC implantation related mortality occurred. The overall complication rate during catheter dwell period was 25.0% (n = 23, CR of 1.64 per 1000 cdr) with median time to surgical revision (TTR) or premature TCVC removal of 62.9 (13.3–172.1) days. Table 2 summarizes both procedural adverse events and Table 3 dwell period complications. The most frequent complication was TCVC-related infection with an overall prevalence of 9.8% (n = 9, CR = 0.64) occurring in 7 patients. Of these patients, one experienced 3 TCVC-related infections and the remaining six experienced one TCVC-related infection. Overall, 66.6% (n = 6) of the pathogens causing TCVC-related infections were Gram-positive, while in 11.1% (n = 1) the blood cultures remained sterile in the setting of applied broad-spectrum antibiotics. Fungal infection was observed in two (22.2%) patients (Table 4). There were no significant differences in median times to elective catheter explantation in patients who completed therapy compared with patients experiencing TCVC-related infections necessitating catheter revision or premature explantation (150 [114–201, range: 20–588] vs. 139 [35–209, range: 35–612], p = 0.97) (Fig 1). Further catheter dwell period complications were relatively infrequent, including late dislocation with overall frequency of 6.5% (n = 6, CR = 0.43), followed by early dislocation (n = 4, 4.3%) and catheter dysfunction (n = 4, 4.3%, CR = 0.28).

Table 2

Adverse events during catheter implantation.

Adverse events	No. (%)
Complicated guide wire insertion after successful venous puncture	7 (7.6)
Inadvertent arterial puncture	2 (2.2)
Multiple unsuccessful venous punctures	2 (2.2)
Conversion to venous cut-down	5 (5.4)
Total number of adverse events	16/92 (17.4)

Table 3

Complications during catheter dwell period.

Complications during catheter dwell period	No. (%)
Early dislocation, n (%)	4 (4.3)
TTR, d, Median (IQR)	5.2 (2.6–6.7)
Late dislocation, n (%)	6 (6.5)
CR	CR 0.43; cdr 180
TTR, d, Median (IQR)	22.6 (16.1–62.7)
Infection, n (%)	9 (9.8)
CR	CR 0.64; cdr 1733
TTR, d, Median (IQR)	139 (35–209)
Dysfunction, n (%)	4 (4.3)
CR	CR 0.28; cdr 587
TTR, d, Median (IQR)	98.6 (18.8–322)
Total, n (%)	23/92 (25.0)
CR	CR 1.64; cdr 14,040
Time to surgical revision (TTR) (days), Median (IQR)	62.9 (13.3–172.1)

Table 4

Microorganisms isolation in TCVC-related infections (total n = 9).

Gram-positive	n = 6 (66.6%)
Enterococus fecalis	2
Staphylococcus epidermidis	2
Staphylococcus haemolyticus	1
Staphylococcus hominis	1
Fungi	n = 2 (22.2%)
Malassezia furfur	1
Candida guilliermondii	1
Sterile blood culture	n = 1 (11.1%)

Fig 1

Elective catheter explantation in patients who completed therapy compared with patients experiencing TCVC-related infections necessitating catheter revision or premature explantation.

Discussion

Our study addressed the poorly investigated epidemiology of TCVC-related morbidity in pediatric HSCT recipients with severe PID. This is, to our knowledge, the first study examining adverse events during catheter implantation and dwell period complications in this particular patient group. We found that both adverse events and dwell period complications are common in our patient cohort, with an overall incidence of 17.4% and 25.0% respectively.

The incidence of adverse events observed during catheter implantation is consistent with the 4.5%–22.0% incidence reported in prior studies of pediatric oncology patients [12-14]. Although ultrasound guidance has been shown to reduce the incidence of failures and inadvertent arterial punctures in pediatric central venous catheterization [15], percutaneous landmark technique was predominantly utilized in our study as this approach is traditional at our institution. In our study, the most frequent procedural adverse event was complicated guide wire insertion after successful venous puncture, which accounted for 7.6%. Although we consistently included this type of adverse events in our analysis, this does not constitute a cannulation failure in the stricter sense. Moreover, it is questionable whether ultrasound guidance would lower the incidence rate, as the insertion of the guide wire is not ultrasound guided. In contrast, inadvertent arterial and multiple unsuccessful venous punctures represent a typical cannulation failure and the incidence of both could be reduced when using ultrasound [16]. Nevertheless, in our study, the incidence of both complications (inadvertent arterial puncture, n = 2, 2.2%; multiple unsuccessful venous punctures, n = 2, 2.2%) was even lower than that reported in the meta-analysis conducted by de Souza et al., with an overall incidence rate of 5.4% for inadvertent arterial puncture and 5% for unsuccessful venous punctures as reported by others [13, 17]. Finally, in our study population, there were 5 (5.4%) patients requiring conversion from percutaneous catheter insertion to open venous cut-down. Although we classified this mode of tunneled central venous catheter implantation as an adverse event (conversion procedure), this technique is also used as the primary procedure in several centers, especially in small children [18, 19]. In our patients, the conversion cut-down was not associated with further complications. Although the implantation setting, catheter cannulation technique and the experiences of the pediatric surgeons were the same as recently reported by our group investigating TCVC-related morbidity in pediatric oncological patients, the 17.4% incidence of adverse events in the present study was higher compared to 12.8% incidence [20].

Data regarding the incidence of TCVC-related complications during dwell period in pediatric HSCT recipients with PID are lacking. There are only few studies predominantly from the adult literature available investigating TCVC-related morbidity on patients with oncological diseases undergoing HSCT [21-23]. Amongst our patient population, we observed the overall rate of 25.0% (n = 23, CR = 1.64) complications during catheter dwell period. Where comparable, this complications rate is in concordance with the data from a systematic review conducted by Ullman et al. including children with oncological diseases without HSCT and showing that 25% of central vein access devices failed before completion of therapy (CR = 1.97 per 1000 catheter days) [7].

In the current study, the most frequent dwell period complications were TCVC-related infections with the overall incidence rate of 9.8% (n = 9, CR = 0.64) leading to premature catheter removal after median time of 139 catheter in situ days. Even if not directly comparable with the presented data, according to the literature regarding pediatric oncological patients without HSCT, the catheter-associated infections represent the most common complications ranging from 14% to 58% with corresponding CR of 0.57–2.8 episodes per 1000 CVC days at risk [8, 24–27]. The relatively low rates of TCVC-related infection observed in our patients with severe PID undergoing HSCT were highly unexpected due to the fact that these children are per se at very high risk for infections [28]. However, it should be noted that, in this study, we investigated only TCVC-related infections leading to catheter removal, neglecting conservatively treated TCVC-related infection and non-TCVC-related infections. Further non-infective catheter-related complications were very low ranging from 4.3% to 6.5%. These low rates of non-infective complications are in concordance with other studies [29, 30].

Our study has several limitations, including its retrospective nature, single-center setup, and relatively small sample size. The implantation technique and management of TCVC during HSCT are based on local protocols, which may differ from those applied in other centers. Thus, our data on TCVC-related morbidity should be interpreted with caution, and prospective studies are needed. However, while we acknowledge these limitations, our study has also strengths, including patient cohort with very rare diseases.

Conclusion

This is the first study to date characterizing TCVC-related morbidity in pediatric HSCT recipients with severe PID. We demonstrated that the implantation of TCVC is associated with 17.4% of adverse events and that dwell period complications occur in 25.0% of patients. Unexpected, the incidence of TCVC-related infections was relatively low. The findings of our study provide valuable information on the epidemiology of tunneled central venous catheters indicating their safety in this particular patient group.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

16 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-01609

Safety of Tunneled Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients with Severe Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martynov,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study, including:  a) the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records were accessed; b) the date range (month and year) during which patients whose medical records were selected for this study sought treatment; and c) the source of the medical records analyzed in this work (e.g. hospital, institution or medical center name). If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present manuscript is nicely written, detailed analyses of tunneled central venous catheters complications in pediatric patients with severe primary immunodeficiency disease. The major criticism concerns the cannulation technique. Ultrasound was not routinely utilized on cannulations. US is common practice on safe cannulations today. Authors detected more adverse events during cannulations than previously reported. Therefore, adding this technical detain more into discussion would add the scientific value of the present paper.

Study population

All? Consecutive? Recipients?

Approval of the study?

Preoperative evaluation….+ discussion

Ultrasound guidance no routinely utilized? This might be reflected with high adverse events during catheter implantation and therefore results might not reflect present best medical practice. This might be causing the 18% incidence of adverse events detected in the present study compared to other studies? The effect of ultrasound guidance on adverse events has not been discussed in the present manuscript.

Exclusion criteria

How many were excluded?

Reviewer #2: Comments on the manuscript titled ‘Safety of tunneled central venous catheters in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients with severe primary immunodeficiency disease’.

This manuscript examined pediatric patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who require a tunneled central venous catheter (TCVC) in a single center and determined TCVC-related complications and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes.

This study showed adverse events during implantation of TCVC, that has not been examined well so far, as well as dwell period complications, although many studies already reported dwell period complications. Actually, it provided common information or data about complications of TVCV during dwelling period, but as long as the patients with HSCT, this study has something new. It also analyzed correlation carefully between adverse events and patients or device characteristics. Off course, it has limitations such as retrospective nature, too long-term of surveillance and single center setups, the reviewer acknowledges that this is steady investigation as a whole.

1. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed even on small number of patients or device characteristics. The reviewer does not think statistically correct.

1. Abstract line10: 24.605 � 24,605

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

22 Apr 2020

Point-by-point response to the comments of the Reviewers

The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the careful reading of our manuscript and for providing valuable comments and suggestions. The following responses have been prepared to address all your comments in a point-by-point style.

Journal Requirements:

Response 1)

“1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf ”

We thank for this comment. We have checked both documents (manuscript file and author´s affiliation file) carefully for style requirements. Both documents have the style required by Plos One Journal.

Response 2)

“2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study, including: a) the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records were accessed; b) the date range (month and year) during which patients whose medical records were selected for this study sought treatment; and c) the source of the medical records analyzed in this work (e.g. hospital, institution or medical center name). If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.”

We have amended the methods of the paper as follows: “In this retrospective, single-center observational study, all consecutive HSCT recipients between 0 and 20 years of age with severe PID who underwent implantation of TCVC at the University Medical Center of Freiburg between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2019 were included. Data on patient and device characteristics, procedural adverse events, and complications during catheter dwell period resulting in revisional surgery or premature removal were retrieved from the Patient Data Management System (PDMS). At the time of data extraction one of patients sought treatment. All extracted data were fully anonymized before access and subsequently analysis.”

Reviewer #1:

Response 1)

“The present manuscript is nicely written, detailed analyses of tunneled central venous catheters complications in pediatric patients with severe primary immunodeficiency disease. The major criticism concerns the cannulation technique. Ultrasound was not routinely utilized on cannulations. US is common practice on safe cannulations today. Authors detected more adverse events during cannulations than previously reported. Therefore, adding this technical detain more into discussion would add the scientific value of the present paper. Ultrasound guidance no routinely utilized? This might be reflected with high adverse events during catheter implantation and therefore results might not reflect present best medical practice. This might be causing the 18% incidence of adverse events detected in the present study compared to other studies? The effect of ultrasound guidance on adverse events has not been discussed in the present manuscript.”

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are aware that guided placement of tunneled central venous catheters represents a standard technique nowadays. This recommendation is based on meta-analyses of RCTs comparing real-time ultrasound-guided venipuncture of the internal jugular with an anatomical landmark approach reporting higher first insertion attempt success rates, higher overall success rates, and lower rates of arterial puncture. However, in Europe, and particular in Germany, the ultrasound guided cannulation has not yet been widely adopted in clinical daily practice. In our clinic, we traditionally use landmark technique for the vein cannulation. We agree that the landmark technique represents the limitation of our study and have therefore addressed this point in the discussion section as follows: “The incidence of adverse events observed during catheter implantation is consistent with the 4.5%–22.0% incidence reported in prior studies of pediatric oncology patients [12-14]. Although ultrasound guidance has been shown to reduce the incidence of failures and inadvertent arterial punctures in pediatric central venous catheterization [15], percutaneous landmark technique was predominantly utilized in our study as this approach is traditional at our institution. In our study, the most frequent procedural adverse event was complicated guide wire insertion after successful venous puncture, which accounted for 7.6%. Although we consistently included this type of adverse events in our analysis, this does not constitute a cannulation failure in the stricter sense. Moreover, it is questionable whether ultrasound guidance would lower the incidence rate, as the insertion of the guide wire is not ultrasound guided. In contrast, inadvertent arterial and multiple unsuccessful venous punctures represent a typical cannulation failure and the incidence of both could be reduced when using ultrasound [16]. Nevertheless, in our study, the incidence of both complications (inadvertent arterial puncture, n=2, 2.2%; multiple unsuccessful venous punctures, n=2, 2.2%) was even lower than that reported in the meta-analysis conducted by de Souza et al., with an overall incidence rate of 5.4% for inadvertent arterial puncture and 5% for unsuccessful venous punctures as reported by others [13, 17]. Finally, in our study population, there were 5 (5.4%) patients requiring conversion from percutaneous catheter insertion to open venous cut-down. Although we classified this mode of tunneled central venous catheter implantation as an adverse event (conversion procedure), this technique is also used as the primary procedure in several centers, especially in small children [18, 19]. In our patients, the conversion cut-down was not associated with further complications. Although the implantation setting, catheter cannulation technique and the experiences of the pediatric surgeons were the same as recently reported by our group investigating TCVC-related morbidity in pediatric oncological patients, the 17.4% incidence of adverse events in the present study was higher compared to 12.8% incidence [20].”

Response 2)

Study population All? Consecutive? Recipients? Approval of the study? Preoperative evaluation….+ discussion. Exclusion criteria How many were excluded?

We appreciate the Reviewer´s comment. We included consecutive pediatric patients with severe PID considered for HSC requiring TCVC implantation as stated in manuscript (page 7, results section). We agree that this information should be mentioned in methods as well. Therefore, we have corrected the text correspondingly: “In this retrospective, single-center observational study, all consecutive HSCT recipients between 0 and 20 years of age with severe PID who underwent implantation of TCVC at the University Medical Center of Freiburg between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2019 were included. Data on patient and device characteristics, procedural adverse events, and complications during catheter dwell period resulting in revisional surgery or premature removal were retrieved from the Patient Data Management System (PDMS). At the time of data extraction, one of the patients was seeking treatment. All extracted data were fully anonymized before access and subsequently analysis..” There was no need for approval of this study, as all extracted data were fully anonymized before access and analysis. The preoperative evaluation is described in the original version of the manuscript on page 5 (Preoperative evaluation and surgical technique of catheter placement). Regarding the question on exclusion criteria, we agree with the Reviewer that there was no detailed information on patients who were excluded from our study in the initial form of the paper. However, after rewriting the manuscript according to the suggestions of the Reviewer #2 (we now included all consecutive patients between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2019), we do not have any cases with missing or incomplete data sets or patients with loss of follow up due to catheter removal at other institution. The sentence “Patients with missing or incomplete data or who underwent insertion or catheter removal at other institutions were excluded from analysis” was removed.

Reviewer #2:

Response 1)

“This manuscript examined pediatric patients with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) who require a tunneled central venous catheter (TCVC) in a single center and determined TCVC-related complications and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes. This study showed adverse events during implantation of TCVC, that has not been examined well so far, as well as dwell period complications, although many studies already reported dwell period complications. Actually, it provided common information or data about complications of TVCV during dwelling period, but as long as the patients with HSCT, this study has something new. It also analyzed correlation carefully between adverse events and patients or device characteristics. Off course, it has limitations such as retrospective nature, too long-term of surveillance and single center setups, the reviewer acknowledges that this is steady investigation as a whole. 1. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed even on small number of patients or device characteristics. The reviewer does not think statistically correct. 1. Abstract line10: 24.605 � 24,605”

We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We also believe that pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients with severe primary immunodeficiency diseases represents a particular patient group in which, currently, no data on the procedural and long-term outcomes of tunneled central venous catheters available. We surely agree with the Reviewer that the retrospective nature, long-term surveillance and the single center setup represent the most important limitations of our study. As “too long-term of surveillance” is the single modifiable parameter, we addressed this suggestion by shortening the observational period to the last 12 years (01/01/2008 – 31/12/2019). We also added two patients with 18 years of age, as well as one with 19 and one with 20 years of age to include all consecutive patients treated in our institution during the last 12 years. The redo analysis showed no significant differences in regard to incidence of adverse events during cannulation (before redo: 18.0% vs. after redo: 17.4%) or dwell period complications (before redo: 24.8% vs. after redo: 25.0%). Thus, without altering the primary outcome parameters of our study, we enhanced the quality of data as all extracted data were complete. We surely agree with the Reviewer that the univariate and multivariate analysis were performed on a small number of patients and device variables affecting the sensitivity (or precision) of the results. The provided OR with corresponding confidence intervals showed high variation. Therefore, to acknowledge the kind suggestions of the reviewer, we have delete both analyses. Finally, 24.605 was corrected to 24,605.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer_Plos_One_TCVC.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Apr 2020

Safety of Tunneled Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients with Severe Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases

PONE-D-20-01609R1

Dear Dr. Illya Martynov,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The concerns and issues from the reviewers have been addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments have been addressed adequatelly in the revisioned manuscript. No further comments for the authors

Reviewer #2: The authors have made some correction and improved their manuscript. I have no further questions about this manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Harri Hakovirta

Reviewer #2: No

4 May 2020

PONE-D-20-01609R1

Safety of Tunneled Central Venous Catheters in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients with Severe Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases

Dear Dr. Martynov:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE