Insertion of Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices: An Expertise-Based, Randomized, Controlled Trial (NCT00600444)

Objective:Comparison of two different insertion techniques for implantation of totally implantable access ports (TIAP). Background:TIAP are introduced through different open and closed cannulation strategies and by various medical experts. The aim of this expertise-based randomized trial was to compare venous cutdown approach with puncture of subclavian vein. Methods:One hundred and ten patients scheduled for primary implantation of a TIAP were randomly assigned to either open insertion technique performed by surgeons or puncture of the subclavian vein under fluoroscopic guidance by radiologists at an outpatient single university center. The primary endpoint was the primary success rate of the cannulation strategy. A logistic regression model was used for analysis adjusting for age, Karnofsky index, body mass index and surgeons', and the radiologists' experience. Results:Percutaneus cannulation was not superior to surgical venous cutdown in the intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.07; 2.15) and the as-treated analysis (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0; 1.28). The procedure was shorter with surgery (median, 21 minutes; 95% CI, 14; 30) than with radiology (median, 45 minutes; 95% CI, 43; 50) (P < 0.001), and the dose of radiation was lower with surgery (median, 37 cGy/cm2; 95% CI, 26; 49) than with radiology (200 cGy/cm2; 95% CI, 200; 300) (P < 0.001). Conclusion:Central venous cannulation for insertion of TIAPs can be performed safely and effectively with both approaches. The open direct surgical access requires further strategies for successful placement of a TIAP, and percutaneous Seldinger technique requires more time and a higher dose of radiation and is associated with risk of pneumothorax.

[1]  J. Eledjam,et al.  Pulsed Doppler Ultrasonography Guidance for Catheterization of the Subclavian Vein: A Randomized Study , 1998, Anesthesiology.

[2]  I. Di Carlo,et al.  Increased Use of Percutaneous Technique for Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices. Is It Real Progress? A 27-Year Comprehensive Review on Early Complications , 2010, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[3]  T. Burke,et al.  Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports placed by interventional radiologists. , 1997, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[4]  Perry Ep,et al.  Direct cephalic vein cannulation for safe subclavian access. , 1990 .

[5]  R. Biffi,et al.  Treatment of pneumothorax as a complication of long-term central venous port placement in oncology patients. An observational study. , 2001, The journal of vascular access.

[6]  D. Hovsepian,et al.  Interventional radiologic placement of chest wall ports: results and complications in 161 consecutive placements. , 1997, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[7]  J. R. Nash,et al.  Direct cephalic vein cannulation for safe subclavian access. , 1990, Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.

[8]  Mohit Bhandari,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions , 2010, Annals of surgery.

[9]  I. Di Carlo,et al.  Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. , 2001 .

[10]  D. Winchester,et al.  Prospective, randomized trial of Doppler-assisted subclavian vein catheterization. , 1998, Archives of surgery.

[11]  J. Niederhuber,et al.  Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. , 1982, Surgery.

[12]  M. Büchler,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of a modified Seldinger technique for open central venous cannulation for implantable access devices , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[13]  S. Povoski A Prospective Analysis of the Cephalic Vein Cutdown Approach for Chronic Indwelling Central Venous Access in 100 Consecutive Cancer Patients , 2000, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[14]  T. Chuter,et al.  Placement of Hickman-Broviac catheters in the cephalic vein. , 1988, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[15]  D. Conti,et al.  Placement of a double lumen silastic catheter for hemodialysis access through the cephalic vein. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[16]  A. Toro,et al.  External Jugular Vein Cutdown Approach, as a Useful Alternative, Supports the Choice of the Cephalic Vein for Totally Implantable Access Device Placement , 2005, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  D. Wagner,et al.  [The fluoroscopy-guided implantation of subcutaneous venous ports: the complications and long-term results]. , 1998, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[18]  A. Kluge,et al.  Durchleuchtungsgesteuerte Implantation subkutaner Venenports: Komplikationen und Langzeitergebnisse , 1998 .

[19]  J. Olsen,et al.  Long-term follow-up of upper extremity implanted venous access devices in oncology patients. , 1999, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[20]  H. Kauczor,et al.  Protocol of an expertise based randomized trial comparing surgical Venae Sectio versus radiological Puncture of Vena Subclavia for insertion of Totally Implantable Access Port in oncological patients , 2008, Trials.

[21]  C. Seiler,et al.  Surgical technique for totally implantable access ports (TIAP) needs improvement: A multivariate analysis of 400 patients , 2006, Journal of surgical oncology.

[22]  H. Weiss,et al.  Central Venous Access Ports Placed by Interventional Radiologists: Experience with 125 Consecutive Patients , 2001, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[23]  V. Diehl,et al.  Phase III trial of postoperative cisplatin, interferon alpha-2b, and 5-FU combined with external radiation treatment versus 5-FU alone for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma – CapRI: study protocol [ISRCTN62866759] , 2005, BMC Cancer.

[24]  F. Au The anatomy of the cephalic vein. , 1989, The American surgeon.

[25]  K. Rufibach,et al.  Randomized clinical trial comparing venous cutdown with the Seldinger technique for placement of implantable venous access ports , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[26]  C. Seiler,et al.  Reasons for Explantation of Totally Implantable Access Ports: A Multivariate Analysis of 385 Consecutive Patients , 2008, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[27]  J. le Saout,et al.  [Anatomical basis for the surgical use of the cephalic vein (V. Cephalica). 74 anatomical dissections. 189 surgical dissections]. , 1983, Journal de chirurgie.

[28]  J. L. Hernández,et al.  The complications of central venous access systems: a study of 218 patients. , 1993, The European journal of surgery = Acta chirurgica.

[29]  Daniel Hind,et al.  Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  D. Radice,et al.  Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[32]  P. Kienle,et al.  Comparison of Venae Sectio vs. modified Seldinger Technique for Totally Implantable Access Ports; Portas-trial [ISRCTN:52368201] , 2006, Trials.

[33]  J. Edney,et al.  Insertion of Hickman catheters. A comparison of cutdown and percutaneous techniques. , 1984, The American surgeon.

[34]  F. Orsi,et al.  Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. , 1998, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.