Background
The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility, and
complications of totally implanted venous access ports (TIVAPs) in the upper arm,
for comparison with transjugular chest ports in patients with breast cancer.
Methods
In total, 223 consecutive female breast cancer patients who received a TIVAP in the
upper arm or chest between July 2014 and February 2016 were included. All procedures
were performed via a sonographic and fluoroscopic-guided approach using the Seldinger
technique under local anesthesia. We reviewed the medical records to determine technical
success, pain scale, and early (≤30 days) and late (>30 days) complications.
Results
In total, 231 devices were implanted in the upper arms (n = 176, 76%) and chests (n = 55, 24%) of the patients. The mean age was 51.6 ± 10.7 years (range 23–78 years;
upper arm, 52.1 ± 11.0 years; chest, 50.1 ± 9.7 years, P > 0.05). The mean implantation time for TIVAPs was 181.7 ± 109.2 days (range, 9–460 days;
upper arm 175.2 ± 102.7 days; chest, 202.4 ± 126.6 days, P > 0.05), with 41,974 catheter days. The technical success rate was 100%. Fourteen
complications (6.1%) occurred in 14 patients (0.33/1,000 catheter days). There was
no significant difference in complication-free survival for patients with upper arm
TIVAPs and those with transjugular chest TIVAPs. The mean amount of 2% lidocaine,
used as local anesthesia, was 3.3 ± 1.7 mL and 14.5 ± 4.1 mL for upper arm and chest
TIVAPs, respectively. (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
Implantation of TIVAPs in the upper arm is a safe procedure with a low rate of complications.
Upper arm TIVAPs can be implanted with less pain compared with transjugular chest
TIVAPs.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Annals of Vascular SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Longterm central venous access in gynecologic cancer patients.J Am Coll Surg. 2000; 191: 403-409
- Multidrug infusions in a Swiss palliative care unit: assessment of frequent combinations in terms of clinical effectiveness, compatibility, and stability.Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24: 4971-4978
- Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients.Ann Oncol. 2004; 15: 296-300
- Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.Br J Cancer. 2016; 114: 979-985
- Venous cutdown versus the Seldinger technique for placement of totally implantable venous access ports.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; : CD008942
- Subclavian vein versus arm vein for totally implantable central venous port for patients with head and neck cancer: a retrospective comparative analysis.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011; 34: 1222-1229
- Patients' attitudes to totally implantable venous access port systems for gynecological or breast malignancies.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007; 33: 39-43
- A single-incision technique for placement of implantable venous access ports via the axillary vein.J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25: 1439-1446
- Follow-up of radiologically totally implanted central venous access ports of the upper arm: long-term complications in 127,750 catheter-days.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199: 447-452
- Cavoatrial junction and central venous anatomy: implications for central venous access tip position.J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008; 19: 359-365
- Reporting standards for central venous access.J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003; 14: S443-S452
- Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.Clin Infect Dis. 2009; 49: 1-45
- Best choice of central venous insertion site for the prevention of catheter-related complications in adult patients who need cancer therapy: a randomized trial.Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 935-940
- Totally implantable venous power ports of the forearm and the chest: initial clinical experience with port devices approved for high-pressure injections.Br J Radiol. 2012; 85: e966-e972
- Direct translumbar inferior vena cava ports for long-term central venous access in patients with cancer.J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25: 556-560
- A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008; 34: 1262-1269
- Risk factors for upper extremity venous thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central venous catheters.J Vasc Access. 2012; 13: 231-238
- Peripherally inserted central catheter usage patterns and associated symptomatic upper extremity venous thrombosis.J Vasc Surg. 2012; 55: 761-767
- Incidence and predictive factors of symptomatic thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters in chemotherapy patients.Thromb Res. 2012; 130: 323-326
- Identification of risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in patients with totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm.J Vasc Access. 2012; 13: 79-85
- Subcutaneous venous port implantation in patients with bilateral breast surgery.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007; 30: 405-409
- 1000 Port-A-Cath (R) placements by subclavian vein approach: single surgeon experience.World J Surg. 2015; 39: 328-334
- Upper arm central venous port implantation: a 6-year single institutional retrospective analysis and pictorial essay of procedures for insertion.PLoS One. 2014; 9: e91335
- Totally implantable central venous access port infections in patients with digestive cancer: incidence and risk factors.Am J Infect Control. 2012; 40: 935-939
- Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients.Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 1124-1129
- Explantation of totally implantable venous access ports of the forearm: reasons for removal and observed complications.J Vasc Access. 2011; 12: 45-51
- Port-a-Cath extravasation of vesicant cytotoxics: surgical options for a rare complication of cancer chemotherapy.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41: 378-385
- Update on totally implantable venous access devices.Surg Oncol. 2012; 21: 207-215
- Central venous port catheters: evaluation of patients' satisfaction with implantation under local anesthesia.J Vasc Access. 2009; 10: 27-32
- Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception.Eur J Radiol. 2011; 79: 338-342
Article info
Publication history
Published online: February 23, 2018
Accepted:
November 12,
2017
Received:
July 12,
2017
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
