Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 1162–1165 | Cite as

Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients—single center experience

  • J. CharvátEmail author
  • Z. Linke
  • M. Horáèková
  • J. Prausová
Short Communication

Abstract

Aim of work

Evaluation of suitability and safety of venous port implantation with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients.

Patients and methods

One hundred one totally implantable venous ports were placed in 100 patients with malignancies from January 1, 2003 until March 31, 2005. Catheter of venous port was preferably inserted via the right internal jugular vein. We recorded a number of successful implantations using this venous approach and the rate of complications during the procedure and follow-up.

Main results

Ninety-seven catheters (96%) of totally implantable venous ports were inserted via the right internal jugular vein in 96 patients, and only in four cases were we not able to access this vein. We had no complications related to catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein. Follow-up was made in all 96 patients with a total access days of 41 in 151 days (mean: 407 days). Premature catheter removal was required in six (6.2%, 0.144 per 1,000 access days) due to complications: three catheter dislocations/malfunctions (3.1%, 0.072 per 1,000 access days), one port-related sepsis, one pocket port infection, and one decubitus over port (1%, 0.024 per 1,000 access days). Six venous ports were removed after completion of the treatment at the patient’s request.

Conclusion

The placement of totally implantable venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein has a high success rate without any early complications. Follow-up also demonstrates a low incidence of late complications requiring port removal.

Keywords

Oncology Venous port Right internal jugular vein 

References

  1. 1.
    Biffi R, deBraud F, Orsi F et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access port for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and cost of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 9(7):767–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ (1999) Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol 17(4):1267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH (1973) A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 136(4):602–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carde P, Cosset-Delaigue MF, LaPlanche A, Chareau I (1989) Classical external indwelling central venous catheter versus totally implanted venous access system for chemotherapy administration: a randomized trial in 100 patients with solid tumours. Eur J Clin Oncol 25(6):939–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Gregorio MA, Miguelena JM, Fernandez JA, De Gregorio C, Tres A, et Alfonso ER (1996) Subcutaneous ports in the radiology suite. An effective and safe procedure for care in cancer patients. Eur Radiol 6(5):748–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans TR, Lofts FJ, Mansi JL, Glees JP, Dalgleish AG, Knight MJ (1996) A phase II study of continuous infusion of 5-fluoracil with cisplatin and epirubicin in inoperable cancer. Br J Cancer 73(10):1260–1264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funaki B, Szymski G, Hackworth C et al (1997) Radiologic placement of subcutaneous infusion chest ports for long-term central venous access. AJR 169(5):1431–1434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gyves J, Ensminger W, Niederhuber J et al (1982) Totally implanted system for intravenous chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Am J Med 73(6):840–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, Sanders JE, Stewart P, Thomas ED (1979) A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplants recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet 148(6):871–875PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW (1998) Implantable vascular access system. Experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port system. World J Surg 22(1):12–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lorenzo JM, Funaki B, Van Ha T, Leef JA (2001) Radiologic placement of implantable chest ports in paediatric patients. Am J Roentgenol 176(4):991–994Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McBride KD, Fisher R, Warnock N, Winfield DA, Read MW, Gaines PA (1997) A comparative analysis of radiological and surgical placement of central venous catheter. CVIR 20(1):17–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monreal M, Alastrue A, Rull M et al (1996) Upper extremity deep venous thrombosis in cancer patients with venous access devices—prophylaxis with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin). Thromb Haemost 75(2):251–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morris SL, Jaques PF, Mauro MA (1992) Radiology assisted placement of implantable subcutaneous infusion ports for long-term venous access. Radiology 184(1):149–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Neill VJ, Jeffrey Evans TR, Preston J, Moss J, Kaye SB (1999) A retrospective analysis of Hickman line-associated complications in patients with solid tumour undergoing infusion chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 38(8):1103–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savader S (2000) Venous interventional radiology. Thieme Medical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shetty PC, Mody MK, Kaston DJ et al (1997) Outcome of 350 implanted chest ports. Results and complications in 161 consecutive patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 8(6):991–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Woda RP, Miner ME, McCandless C, McSweeney TD (1996) The effect of right internal vein cumulation on intracranial pressure. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 8(4):286–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yip D, Funaki B (2002) Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. Acta Radiol 43(4):371–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Charvát
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Z. Linke
    • 2
  • M. Horáèková
    • 1
  • J. Prausová
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Department of 2nd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and the Motol Faculty HospitalPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Radio Therapeutic Department of the Motol Faculty HospitalPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Medical Department2nd Faculty of Medicine of Charles UniversityPrague 5Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations