Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 326–331 | Cite as

Totally Implantable Venous Access Devices in Children Requiring Long-Term Chemotherapy: Analysis of Outcome in 122 Children from a Single Institution.

  • Gowri ShankarEmail author
  • Vinay Jadhav
  • Ravindra S
  • Narendra Babu
  • Ramesh S
Original Article

Abstract

Children with malignancy require venous access that is reliable, safe and compliant on a long-term basis. There is little data available on utilization of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVAD) for long term chemotherapy in children in an Indian setting [1]. We report our long-term follow-up results of utilization of totally implantable venous access devices for long-term chemotherapy in children. This was a retrospective analysis of 122 children requiring long-term chemotherapy done between January 2008 and December 2013. Data collected included primary disease process, type of port, site of insertion, intraoperative events, early and late postoperative complications, and issues with utilization, maintenance and removal. 127 ports were placed in 122 children. The follow up ranged from 16 to 50 months. Internal jugular vein was accessed in 96.8 % of cases (123/127). Majority of children (61 %) had hematological malignancy. Early complications occurred in 5 children. Late complications occurred in 18 children which included port pocket infection in 3, port site skin issues in 5, catheter related issues in 3, venous thrombosis in 2 and catheter related bacteremia in 5 children respectively. Only 10 children have been lost to follow-up either due to death or discontinuation of treatment and rest are on follow up. Totally implantable venous access devices usage is safe and reliable for access needs in children for long-term chemotherapy. Their low complication and low cost maintenance should increase their utilization in children requiring long-term chemotherapy. Chemoport placement in children with hematological malignancy can be carried out safely without much impact on complication rates. Though management and compliance of children with malignancy has improved; critical analysis and standardization of port system care through prospective trials are necessary to reduce the morbidity and for cost analysis in these children.

Keywords

Chemoport Paediatric malignancy Long-term chemotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict Interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Mittal L, Kalra M, Mahajan A (2012) Study of feasibility and acceptability of subcutaneous implantable ports (SIPs) in cancer patients. Indian J Pediatr 79:1601–1604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, Pozzi S, Mauri S, Goldhirsch A et al (1998) Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days. Ann Oncol 9:767–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Essex-Cater A, Gilbert J, Robinson TT, Littlewood JM (1989) Totally implantable venous access systems in paediatric practice. Arch Dis Child 64:119–123CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ribeiro RC, Abib SCV, Aguiar AS, Schettini ST (2012) Long-term complications in totally implantable venous access devices: randomized study comparing subclavian and internal jugular vein puncture. Pediatr Blood Cancer 58:274–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvert N (2004) Hind D Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Anaesthesia 59:1116–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yildizeli B, Lacin T, Batirel HF et al (2004) Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. J Vasc Access 5:174–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouza E, Burillo A, Munoz P (2002) Catheter-related infections: diagnosis and intravascular treatment. Clin Microbiol Infect 8:265–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groeger JS, Lucas AB, Thaler HT et al (1993) Infectious morbidity associated with long-term use of venous access devices in patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med 119:1168–1174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loh AHP, Chui CH (2007) Port-A-Cath insertions in acute leukemia: does thrombocytopenia affect morbidity? J Pediatr Surg 42:1180–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abbas AA, Fryer CJ, Paltiel C et al (2004) Factors influencing central line infections in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results of a single institutional study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 42:325–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Junqueira BL, Connolly B, Abla O, Tomlinson G, Amaral JG (2010) Severe neutropenia at time of port insertion is not a risk factor for catheter-associated infections in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Cancer 116:4368–4375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW (1998) Implantable venous access system: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port system. World J Surg 22:12–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bern M, Lokich JJ, Sabina R, Albert B, Peter NB, Charles FA et al (1990) Very low doses of warfarin can prevent thrombosis in central venous catheters. Ann Intern Med 112:423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Cicco M, Matovic M, Balestreri L, Panarello G, Fantin D, Morassut S et al (1997) Central venous thrombosis: an early and frequent complication in cancer patients bearing long term silastic catheter. A prospective study. Thromb Res 86:101–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Couban S, Goodyear M, Burnell M, Dolan S, Wasi P, Barnes D et al (2005) Randomized, placebo-controlled study of low-dose warfarin for the prevention of central venous catheter-associated thrombosis in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:4063–4069CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurul S, Saip P, Aydin T (2002) Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol 3(11):684–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klotz HP, Schopke W, Kohler A, Pestalozzi B, Largiader F (1996) Catheter fracture: a rare complication of totally implantable subclavian venous access devices. J Surg Oncol 62:222–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solanki S, Babu MN, Gowrishankar BC, Ramesh S (2014) Delayed cardiac migration of totally implantable central venous access catheter. Clin Cancer Investig J 3:182–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roye GD, Breazeale EE, Byrnes JP, Rue LW 3rd (1996) Management of catheter emboli. South Med J 89:714–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisher RG, Ferreyro R (1978) Evaluation of current techniques for nonsurgical removal of intravascular iatrogenic foreign bodies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130:541–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gowri Shankar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vinay Jadhav
    • 1
  • Ravindra S
    • 1
  • Narendra Babu
    • 1
  • Ramesh S
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric SurgeryIndira Gandhi Institute of Child HealthBangalore-28India

Personalised recommendations