Catheter-related Complications of Subcutaneous Implantable Venous Access Devices in Breast Cancer Patients

Background/Aim: Totally implanted venous access devices (TIVAD) are increasingly used in the treatment of cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of early and late complications resulting from subcutaneous TIVADs in patients with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Between 2004 and 2009, we reviewed patients with breast cancer who had a TIVAD placed. Early and late complications, as well as risk factors for TIVAD-associated thrombosis were retrospectively assessed. Results: A total of 281 patients were included. Complications occurred in 26% of patients, the majority of which were late complications (21.4%.) The development of TIVAD associated thrombosis was the most frequent late complication (16.4%). In the univariate analysis followed by a multivariate model, risk factors for TIVAD associated thrombosis were not identified. Only within the subgroup of metastatic breast cancer patients an increased risk of TIVAD-associated thrombosis of left compared to right venous access was detected (p=0.015). Conclusion: TIVAD implantation done in a gynecological outpatient setting is feasible and safe.

[1]  Chih-Hung Hsu,et al.  Right or left? Side selection for a totally implantable vascular access device: a randomised observational study , 2017, British Journal of Cancer.

[2]  D. Sidloff,et al.  A comparison of Infections and Complications in Central Venous Catheters in Adults with Solid Tumours , 2015, The journal of vascular access.

[3]  C. Castoro,et al.  Totally implantable venous access devices: retrospective analysis of different insertion techniques and predictors of complications in 796 devices implanted in a single institution , 2014, BMC Surgery.

[4]  D. Mukherji,et al.  Update on totally implantable venous access devices. , 2012, Surgical oncology.

[5]  D. Feller-Kopman,et al.  International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access , 2012, Intensive Care Medicine.

[6]  G. Kouraklis,et al.  Real-time ultrasound-guided subclavian vein cannulation versus the landmark method in critical care patients: A prospective randomized study* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[7]  F. Orsi,et al.  Gavecelt * Consensus Statement on the Correct use of Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices for Diagnostic Radiology Procedures , 2011, The journal of vascular access.

[8]  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.

[9]  S. Costa,et al.  An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. , 2009, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[10]  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.

[11]  U. Teichgräber,et al.  A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes with Regular- and Low-Profile Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems , 2009, CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.

[12]  S. Breitenstein,et al.  Infectious Port Complications Are More Frequent in Younger Patients with Hematologic Malignancies than in Solid Tumor Patients , 2008, Oncology.

[13]  S. Loibl,et al.  Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  T. Barbui,et al.  Incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with haematological malignancies with central venous catheters: a prospective multicentre study , 2005, British journal of haematology.

[15]  G. Agnelli,et al.  Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[17]  C. Beverley,et al.  The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound locating devices for central venous access: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

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

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

[20]  J. Wehner,et al.  Complications of long arm-catheters: a randomized trial of central vs peripheral tip location. , 1996, JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

[21]  C. Marsault,et al.  Superior vena cava thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy given through implanted ports , 1993, Cancer.

[22]  A. Laplanche,et al.  Classical external indwelling central venous catheter versus totally implanted venous access systems for chemotherapy administration: a randomized trial in 100 patients with solid tumors. , 1989, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

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

[24]  E. Thomas,et al.  A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. , 1979, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.