Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 81–89 | Cite as

Totally implantable venous access ports: a prospective long-term study of early and late complications in adult patients with cancer

  • Eric VoogEmail author
  • Loïc Campion
  • Pauline du Rusquec
  • Hugues Bourgeois
  • Julien Domont
  • Fabrice Denis
  • Eric Emmanuel
  • Olivier Dupuis
  • Gérard Ganem
  • Cedrik Lafont
  • Katell Le Du
  • Elena Pavluc
  • Yohan Pointreau
  • Sophie Roche
  • Laurence Juhel-Voog
  • Marie Zinger
  • Philippe Solal-Celigny
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) have been widely used for many years in the management of patients suffering from cancer. The implantation and long-term use of TIVAPs are associated with mechanical, thrombotic, and infectious complications. This is the first exhaustive prospective study of all complications occurring in a whole population on long-term follow-up and therefore allows an objective assessment to be made of the safety of TIVAPs.

Methods

We carried out a prospective single-center observational study. All adult patients with cancer who had a TIVAP implanted between January 1 and December 31, 2006 were registered. Early and late complications were recorded until the removal of the device, the patient’s death, or until December 31, 2013. Exhaustive data concerning patients and TIVAP was recorded at time of implantation.

Results

Four hundred and ninety-three TIVAPs were implanted in 483 adult cancer patients and were followed during a period from 1 to 94 months (median = 18 months) representing a global quantity of 367,359 catheter-days. Eighty-seven complications were recorded (0.237/1000 catheter-days), including 37 infections (0.101/1000 catheter-days), 17 thrombotic events (0.046/1000 catheter-days), and 9 extravasations. Out of the 87 events, 62 (71.3%) occurred during the first year after implantation. Events were therefore extremely rare after 1 year. Thromboembolic and infectious complications were rare and no risk factors for these were found.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates excellent tolerability, with only occasional complications. Most of these occurred during the year following implantation. A TIVAP may also be left in place for an extremely long time.

Keywords

Totally implantable venous access port Complications Long-term follow-up Thromboses Infections Cancer chemotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The research has not been sponsored. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

We have full control of all primary data and allow the journal to review all the data.

References

  1. 1.
    Sznajder JL, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H et al (1986) Central vein catheterization: failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med 146:259–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansfield PF, Hohn DC, Fornage BD et al (1994) Complications and failures of subclavian-vein catheterization. N Engl J Med 331:1735–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verso M, Agnelli G (2003) Venous thromboembolism associated with long-term use of central venous catheters in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 21(19):3665–3675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lebeaux D, Larroque B, Gellen-Dautremer J, Leflon-Guibout V, Dreyer C, Bialek S, Froissart A, Hentic O, Tessier C, Ruimy R, Pelletier AL, Crestani B, Fournier M, Papo T, Barry B, Zarrouk V, Fantin B (2012) Clinical outcome after a totally implantable venous access port-related infection in cancer patients: a prospective study and review of the literature. Medicine 91(6):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biffi R, Pozzi S, Agazzi A, Pace U, Floridi A, Cenciarelli S, Peveri V, Cocquio A, Andreoni B, Martinelli G (2004) 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 15:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bassi KK, Giri AK, Pattanayak M, Abraham SW, Pandey KK (2012) Totally implantable venous access ports: retrospective review of long-term complications in 81 patients. Indian J Cancer 49(1):114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prandoni P, Polistena P, Bernardi E, Cogo A, Casara D, Verlato F, Angelini F, Simioni P, Signorini GP, Benedetti L, Girolami A (1987) Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Risk factors, diagnosis, and complications. Arch Intern Med 157(1):57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hull RD, Hirsh J, Carter CJ, Jay RM, Dodd PE, Ockelford PA, Coates G, Gill GJ, Turpie AG, Doyle DJ, Buller HR, Raskob GE (1983) Pulmonary angiography, ventilation lung scanning, and venography for clinically suspected pulmonary embolism with abnormal perfusion lung scan. Ann Intern Med 98(6):891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW (1988) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22(1):12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolosker N, Yazbek G, Nishinari K et al (2004) Totaly implantable venous catheters for chemotherapy: experience in 500 patients. Sao Paulo Med J 122:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee AY, Levine MN, Butler G, Webb C, Costantini L, Gu C, Julian JA (2006) Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of catheter-related thrombosis in adult patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(9):1404–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penel N, Neu J-C, Clisant S et al (2007) Risk factors for early catheter-related infections in cancer patients. Cancer 110:1586–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Pace U, Bonomo G, Monfardini L, Della Vigna P, Rotmensz N, Radice D, Zampino MG, Fazio N, de Braud F, Andreoni B, Goldhirsch A (2009) 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 20(5):935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishinari K, Wolosker N, Bernardi CV, Yazbek G (2010) Totally implantable ports connected to valved catheters for chemotherapy: experience from 350 Groshong devices. J Vasc Access 11(1):17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heibl C, Trommet V, Burgstaller S, Mayrbaeurl B, Baldinger C, Koplmüller R, Kühr T, Wimmer L, Thaler J (2010) Complications associated with the use of Port-a-Caths in patients with malignant or haematological disease: a single-centre prospective analysis. Eur J Cancer Care 19(5):676–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Revel-Vilk S, Yacobovich J, Tamary H et al (2010) Risk factors for central venous catheter thrombotic complications in children and adolescents with cancer. Cancer 116:4197–4205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piran S, Ngo V, McDiarmid S et al (2014) Incidence and risk factors of symptomatic venous thromboembolism related to implanted ports in cancer patients. Thromb Res 133:30–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joks M, Czyz A, Poplawski D, Komarnicki M (2014) Incidence and risk factors for centrral venous catheter-related thrombosis in hematological patients. Med Oncol 31(1):772Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agnelli G, Verso M (2006) Therapy Insight: venous-catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 3(4):214–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verso M, Agnelli G, Kamphuisen PW, Ageno W, Bazzan M, Lazzaro A, Paoletti F, Paciaroni M, Mosca S, Bertoglio S (2008) Risk factors for upper limb deep vein thrombosis associated with the use of central vein catheter in cancer patients. Intern Emerg Med 3(2):117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT, Friedlander-Klar H, Brown AE, Kiehn TE, Armstrong D (1993) Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 119(12):1168–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chang L, Tsai JS, Huang SJ, Shih CC (2003) Evaluation of infectious complications of the implantable venous access system in a general oncologic population. Am J Infect Control 31(1):34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Voog
    • 1
    Email author
  • Loïc Campion
    • 2
    • 3
  • Pauline du Rusquec
    • 2
  • Hugues Bourgeois
    • 1
  • Julien Domont
    • 1
  • Fabrice Denis
    • 1
  • Eric Emmanuel
    • 1
  • Olivier Dupuis
    • 1
  • Gérard Ganem
    • 1
  • Cedrik Lafont
    • 1
  • Katell Le Du
    • 1
  • Elena Pavluc
    • 1
  • Yohan Pointreau
    • 1
  • Sophie Roche
    • 1
  • Laurence Juhel-Voog
    • 1
  • Marie Zinger
    • 1
  • Philippe Solal-Celigny
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinique Victor HugoInstitut Inter-régional de CancérologieLe MansFrance
  2. 2.Institut de Cancérologie de l’OuestSaint-HerblainFrance
  3. 3.Nantes-Angers Institut de Recherche sur le Cancer, INSERM U892, CNRS UMR 6299Université de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations