Safety of a Totally Implantable Central Venous Port System with Percutaneous Subclavian Vein Access

Background The role of totally implantable central venous port (TICVP) system is increasing. Implantation performed by radiologist with ultrasound-guided access of vein and fluoroscope-guided positioning of catheter is widely accepted nowadays. In this article, we summarized our experience of TICVP system by surgeon and present the success and complication rate of this surgical method. Materials and Methods Between March 2009 and December 2010, 245 ports were implanted in 242 patients by surgeon. These procedures were performed with one small skin incision and subcutaneous puncture of subclavian vein. Patient's profiles, indications of port system, early and delayed complications, and implanted period were evaluated. Results There were 82 men and 160 women with mean age of 55.74. Port system was implanted on right chest in 203, and left chest in 42 patients. There was no intraoperative complication. Early complications occurred in 11 patients (4.49%) including malposition of catheter tip in 6, malfunction of catheter in 3, and port site infection in 2. Late complication occurred in 12 patients (4.90%). Conclusion Surgical insertion of TICVP system with percutaneous subclavian venous access is safe procedures with lower complications. Careful insertion of system and skilled management would decrease complication incidence.

[1]  J. Hwang,et al.  Extended Aortic Arch Replacement Through the L-Incision Approach , 2013, The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  E. Choi,et al.  A Postoperative Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura in a Cardiac Surgery Patient: A Case Report , 2013, The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  D. Chan,et al.  Use of a totally implantable access port through the external jugular vein when the cephalic vein approach is not feasible. , 2011, Annals of vascular surgery.

[4]  U. Teichgräber,et al.  Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems , 2011, European Radiology.

[5]  P. Marcy,et al.  Arm port implantation in cancer patients , 2010, International Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  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.

[7]  H. Wagner,et al.  Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation--high success and low complication rate. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[8]  A. Bodenham,et al.  Cephalic vein cut-down verses percutaneous access: a retrospective study of complications of implantable venous access devices. , 2007, American journal of surgery.

[9]  S. Stavropoulos,et al.  Relationship between chest port catheter tip position and port malfunction after interventional radiologic placement. , 2004, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[10]  T. Vesely.  Central venous catheter tip position: a continuing controversy. , 2003, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[11]  C. Bakal,et al.  Reporting standards for central venous access. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[12]  C. Bakal,et al.  Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. , 2000, Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR.

[13]  J. Heffner,et al.  MRI of central venous anatomy: implications for central venous catheter insertion. , 1998, Chest.

[14]  H. Kock,et al.  Implantable Vascular Access Systems: Experience in 1500 Patients with Totally Implanted Central Venous Port Systems , 1998, World Journal of Surgery.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  W. L. Scott.  Central Venous Catheters: An Overview of Food and Drug Administration Activities , 1995 .

[18]  Bennett Jd,et al.  Insertion of subcutaneous central venous infusion ports by interventional radiologists. , 1995 .

[19]  R. Kozak,et al.  Insertion of subcutaneous central venous infusion ports by interventional radiologists. , 1995, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[20]  A. Merry,et al.  Depth of Central Venous Catheterization: An Audit of Practice in a Cardiac Surgical Unit , 1994, Anaesthesia and intensive care.

[21]  P. Schwartz,et al.  Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies. , 1994, Gynecologic oncology.

[22]  W. Harvey,et al.  A prospective evaluation of the Port-A-Cath implantable venous access system in chronically ill adults and children. , 1989, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

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

[24]  H. Edwards,et al.  Cardiac tamponade from central venous catheters. , 1982, Archives of surgery.