Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on: “ECO-SEOM-SEEO safety recommendations guideline for cancer patients receiving intravenous therapy”, looking to the future

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The Original Article was published on 30 April 2020

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Magallón-Pedrera I, Pérez-Altozano J, Virizuela Echaburu JA, Beato-Zambrano C, Borrega-García P, de la Torre-Montero JC. ECO-SEOM-SEEO safety recommendations guideline for cancer patients receiving intravenous therapy. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02347-1 (published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 30).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DAV Expert [Mobile application software]. (V.1.0.0). Milan, Italy: GAVeCeLT. (2018). Retrieved from: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.gavecalt.davexp&hl=en Accessed 23 May 2020

  3. Zapletal O, Sirotek L, Coufal O. Venous access in cancer patients Žilní vstupy v onkologii. Rozhl Chir. 2019;98(11):427–33. https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2019.98.11.427-433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marcy PY, Magné N, Castadot P, et al. Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer. 2007;110(10):2331–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu Y, Li LL, Xu L, Feng DD, Cao Y, Mao XY, Zheng J, Jin F, Chen B. Comparison between arm port and chest port for optimal vascular access port in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9082924.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Taxbro K, Hammarskjöld F, Thelin B, et al. Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):734–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawson R. PICC zone insertion method™ (ZIM™): a systematic approach to determine the ideal insertion site for PICCs in the upper arm. J Vasc Access. 2011;16:156–65. https://doi.org/10.2309/java.16-3-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Santacruz E, Mateo-Lobo R, Vega-Piñero B, et al. Colocación de catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) de la punta del catéter [Intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement]. Nutr Hosp. 2018;35(5):1005–8. https://doi.org/10.20960/nh.1847 (Published 2018 Oct 5).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bertoglio S, Cafiero F, Meszaros P, et al. PICC-PORT totally implantable vascular access device in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J Vasc Access. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729819884482 (published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 1).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Merlicco D, Lombardi M, Fino MC. PICC-PORT: valid indication to placement in patient with results of extensive skin burns of the neck and chest in oncology. The first case in the scientific literature. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2020;68:63–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2020.02.028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Spencer TR, Mahoney KJ. Reducing catheter-related thrombosis using a risk reduction tool centered on catheter to vessel ratio. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017;44:427–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-017-1569-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schears GJ, Ferko N, Syed I, Arpino JM, Alsbrooks K. Peripherally inserted central catheters inserted with current best practices have low deep vein thrombosis and central line-associated bloodstream infection risk compared with centrally inserted central catheters: a contemporary meta-analysis. J Vasc Access. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1129729820916113 (published online ahead of print, 2020 May 1).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pittiruti M, Scoppettuolo G. The GAVeCeLT manual of PICC and midline: indications, insertion, management. Milano: Edra Edizioni; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gorski LA, Hadaway L, Hagle M, McGoldrick M, Orr M, Doellman D. Infusion therapy standards of practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39(1):S1–S159.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liu Y, Gao Y, Wei L, et al. Peripherally inserted central catheter thrombosis incidence and risk factors in cancer patients: a double-center prospective investigation. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;11:153–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pu YL, Li ZS, Zhi XX, et al. Complications and costs of peripherally inserted central venous catheters compared with implantable port catheters for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Cancer Nurs. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000742 (published online ahead of print, 2019 Aug 27).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moureau N, Lamperti M, Kelly LJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(3):347–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors thank Prof. Pittiruti and Prof. De la Torre Montero for their suggestions during the preparation of this text.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain

    G. Ortiz-Miluy

  2. Hospital Universitario Dr. Jesús Gilberto Gómez Maza, Tuxla Gutierrez, Mexico

    E. Natarén-Cigarroa

  3. Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    M. A. Cubero-Pérez

Authors
  1. G. Ortiz-Miluy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Natarén-Cigarroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. A. Cubero-Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Ortiz-Miluy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The study was carried out to appropriate ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this type of study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Gloria Ortiz-Miluy: Italian Group for Long Term Vascular Access (GAveCeLT), World Conference in Vascular Access (WoCoVA), International Hispanic Network in Vascular Access (RIHAV).

Eliazib Natarén-Cigarroa: International Hispanic Network in Vascular Access (RIHAV), Mexican Society for Professionals in Infusion Therapy (AMPTI).

María Antonia Cubero-Pérez: World Conference in Vascular Access (WoCoVA), Spanish Infusion and Vascular Access Society (SEINAV).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortiz-Miluy, G., Natarén-Cigarroa, E. & Cubero-Pérez, M.A. Comment on: “ECO-SEOM-SEEO safety recommendations guideline for cancer patients receiving intravenous therapy”, looking to the future. Clin Transl Oncol 22, 2136–2138 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02441-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-020-02441-4

Search

Navigation