Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 123–127 | Cite as

Incidence of Central Vein Stenosis and Occlusion Following Upper Extremity PICC and Port Placement

  • Carin F. GonsalvesEmail author
  • David J. Eschelman
  • Kevin L. Sullivan
  • Nancy DuBois
  • Joseph Bonn
Clinical Investigations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of central vein stenosis and occlusion following upper extremity placement of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) and venous ports. One hundred fifty-four patients who underwent venography of the ipsilateral central veins prior to initial and subsequent venous access device insertion were retrospectively identified. All follow-up venograms were interpreted at the time of catheter placement by one interventional radiologist over a 5-year period and compared to the findings on initial venography. For patients with central vein abnormalities, hospital and home infusion service records and radiology reports were reviewed to determine catheter dwell time and potential alternative etiologies of central vein stenosis or occlusion. The effect of catheter caliber and dwell time on development of central vein abnormalities was evaluated. Venography performed prior to initial catheter placement showed that 150 patients had normal central veins. Three patients had central vein stenosis, and one had central vein occlusion. Subsequent venograms (n = 154) at the time of additional venous access device placement demonstrated 8 patients with occlusions and 10 with stenoses. Three of the 18 patients with abnormal follow-up venograms were found to have potential alternative causes of central vein abnormalities. Excluding these 3 patients and the 4 patients with abnormal initial venograms, a 7% incidence of central vein stenosis or occlusion was found in patients with prior indwelling catheters and normal initial venograms. Catheter caliber showed no effect on the subsequent development of central vein abnormalities. Patients who developed new or worsened central vein stenosis or occlusion had significantly (p = 0.03) longer catheter dwell times than patients without central vein abnormalities. New central vein stenosis or occlusion occurred in 7% of patients following upper arm placement of venous access devices. Patients with longer catheter dwell time were more likely to develop central vein abnormalities. In order to preserve vascular access for dialysis fistulae and grafts and adhere to Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines, alternative venous access sites should be considered for patients with chronic renal insufficiency and end-stage renal disease.

Keywords

Central venous catheter Peripherally inserted central catheter Venous infusion port Central venography 

References

  1. 1.
    Cardella, JF, Fox, PS, Lawler, JB 1993Interventional radiologic placement of peripherally inserted catheters.JVIR4653660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foley, MJ 1995Radiologic placement of long-term central venous peripheral access system ports (PAS Port): Results in 150 patients.JVIR6255262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hovsepian, DM, Bonn, J, Eschelman, DJ 1993Techniques for peripherally inserted central venous catheters.JVIR4795803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sullivan, KL, Bonn, J, Shapiro, MJ, Gardiner, GA 1995Venography with carbon dioxide as a contrast agent.CVIR18141145Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonn, J, Eschelman, DJ, Sullivan, KL, Gardiner, GA Jr. 1994Peripheral insertion of central venous catheters guided by means of carbon dioxide contrast agents.JVIR532Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hahn, ST, Pfammatter, T, Cho, KJ 1995Carbon dioxide gas as a venous contrast agent to guide upper-arm insertion of central venous catheters.CVIR18146149Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shetty, PC, Mody, MK, Kastan, DJ, Sharma, RP, Burke, MW, Venugopal, C, Burke, TH 1997Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports placed by interventional radiologists.JVIR8991995Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson, KR, Hovsepian, DM, Picus, D 1997Interventional radiologic placement of chest wall ports: Results and complications in 161 consecutive placements.JVIR8189195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cardella, JF, Cardella, K, Bacci, N, Fox, PS, Post, JH 1996Cumulative experience with 1,273 peripherally inserted central catheters at a single institution.JVIR7513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grove, JR, Pevec, WC 2000Venous thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheters.JVIR11837840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen, AW, Megargell, JL, Brown, DB, Lynch, FC, Singh, H, Singh, Y, Waybill, PN 2000Venous thrombosis associated with the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters.JVIR1113091314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryder, MA 1993Peripherally inserted central venous catheters.Nurs Clin North Am28937971Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balestreri, L, DeCicco, M, Matovic, M, Coran, F, Morassut, S 1995Central venous catheter-related thrombosis in clinically significant symptomatic oncologic patients.Eur J Radiol20108111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karim Valji, MD 1999Vascular and Interventional RadiologyWB SaundersPhiladelphia320Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dialysis Outcome Quality Initiative Guidelines for Vascular Access (2001) American Journal of Kidney Disease, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Suppl 1) S141–S149Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mailloux, LU, Napolitano, B, Bellucci, AG, Vernace, M, Wilkes, BM, Mossey, RT 1994Renal vascular disease causing end-stage renal disease, incidence, clinical correlates, and outcomes: A 20-year clinical experience.Am J Kidney Dis24622629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mokdad, AH, Ford, ES, Bowman, BA, Nelson, DE, Engelgau, MM, Vinic Marks, JS. 2001The continuing increase of diabetes in the US.Diabetes Care24412Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Health Care Food Nutr Focus2001Diabetes in the United States. It is still on the rise, according to the CDC’s latest report.1734Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sasadeusz, KM, Trerotola, SO, Shah, H, Namyslowski, J, Johnson, MS, Moresco, KP, Patel, NH 1999Tunneled jugular small-bore central catheters as an alternative to peripherally inserted central catheters for intermediate-term venous access in patients with hemodialysis and chronic renal insufficiency.Radiology213303306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brown-Smith, JK, Stoner, MH 1990Tunnelled catheter thrombosis: Factors related to incidence.Oncol Nurs Forum17543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goodwin, ML, Carlson, I 1993The peripherally inserted central catheter.J Int Nurs169299Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crowley, JJ, Pereira, JK, Harris, LH, Becker, CJ 1997Peripherally inserted central catheters: Experience in 523 children.Radiology204617621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kincaid, EH, Davis, PW, Chang, MC, Fenstermaker, JM, Pennell, TC 1999“Blind” placement of long-term central venous access devices: Evaluation of 589 consecutive procedures.Am Surg65520523Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horattas, MC, Trupiano, J, Hopkins, S, Pasini, D, Martino, C, Murty, A 2001Changing concepts in long-term central venous access: Catheter selection and cost savings.Am J Inf Contr293240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carin F. Gonsalves
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Eschelman
    • 1
  • Kevin L. Sullivan
    • 1
  • Nancy DuBois
    • 1
  • Joseph Bonn
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyJefferson Medical College/Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Suite 4200 Gibbon Building, 111 South 11th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107USA

Personalised recommendations