Skip to main content

A single institution observational study of early mechanical complications in central venous catheters (valved and open-ended) in children with cancer

Abstract

The use of indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) has become essential for managing children undergoing cancer treatment. Various types of CVCs are available, but reports on complications observed in pediatric series are scarce. We describe our experience concerning early mechanical complications at our institute by providing a prospective evaluation of three types of CVCs that were inserted over a 39-month period. Between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2003, double-lumen (DL) or single-lumen (SL) Hickman-Broviac (HB) and single-lumen pressure-activated safety-valved (PASV) catheters were inserted and prospectively evaluated. Five groups of possible mechanical complications were defined a priori: dislodgement, migration, rupture, accidental removal, and blockage. We took into consideration complications occurring only within the first 30 days of insertion. A total of 272 CVCs (118 PASV, 57 DL-HB, and 97 SL-HB) were inserted in 232 children. A total of 29 early mechanical complications (10.7% of all CVCs) were diagnosed: 15.2% of the PASV, 10.5% of the DL-HB, and 4.1% of the SL-HB. Elective removal of the catheter due to complications was required in eight patients. SL-HB catheters had fewer complications, while the complication rate and the number of devices that were removed were significantly higher in patients with PASV catheters. We conclude that catheter type correlates with the risk of early mechanical complications and removal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Castagnola E, Molinari AC, Fratino G, et al. (2003) Conditions associated with infections of indwelling central venous catheters in cancer patients: a summary. Br J Haematol 121:233–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guth AA (2001) Routine chest X-rays after insertion of implantable long-term venous catheters: necessary or not? Am Surg 67:26–29

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Racadio JM, Doellman DA, Johnson ND, et al. (2001) Pediatric peripherally inserted central catheters: complication rates related to catheter tip location. Pediatrics 107:E28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mermel LA (2000) Prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Ann Intern Med 132:391–402

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al. (2002) Guidelines for the prevention of catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis 35:1281–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. (1999) Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20:247–278

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fratino G, Molinari AC, Mazzola C, et al.(2002) Prospective study of indwelling central venous catheter-related complications in children with Broviac or clampless valved catheters. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 4:657–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Molinari AC, Castagnola E, Mazzola C, et al. (2001) Thromboembolic complications related to indwelling central venous catheters in children with oncological/haematological diseases: a retrospective study of 362 catheters. Support Care Cancer 9:539–544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Herold A, Rothe K, WollerT, et al. (2003) Early and late complications after implantation of central venous catheters. Klin Padiatr 215:24–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grannan KJ, Taylor PH (1990) Early and late complications of totally implantable venous access device. J Surg Oncol 44:52–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Island ER, Church JA, Shaul DB (2001) Short-term complications of central line placement in children with the immunodeficiency virus. J Pediatr Surg 36:1777–1780

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwarz RE, Groeger JS, Coit DG (1997) Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients. Cancer 79:1635–1640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sariego J, Bootorabi B, Matsumoto T, et al. (1993) Major long-term complications in 1,422 permanent venous access devices. Am J Surg 165:249–251

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Biagi E, Arrigo C, Dell’Orto MG, et al. (1997) Mechanical and infective central venous catheter-related complications: a prospective non-randomized study using Hickman and Groshong catheters in children with haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 5:228–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Warner BW, Haygood MM, Davies SL, et al. (1996) A randomized, prospective trial of standard Hickman compared with Groshong central venous catheters in pediatric oncology patients. J Am Coll Surg 183:140–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Babu R, Spicer D (2001) “Cuff-stitch” to prevent inadvertent dislodgement of central venous catheters. Pediatr Surg Int 17:245–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiener ES, McGuire P, Stolar CJ, et al. (1992) The CCSG prospective study of venous access devices: an analysis of insertions and causes for removal. J Pediatr Surg. 27:155–163

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr. Felice Savelli for developing the software.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Claudio Molinari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fratino, G., Castagnola, E., Carlini, C. et al. A single institution observational study of early mechanical complications in central venous catheters (valved and open-ended) in children with cancer. Ped Surgery Int 20, 704–707 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-004-1279-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-004-1279-3

Keywords

  • Central venous catheters
  • Early mechanical complications
  • Children