Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We conducted a nationwide questionnaire-based survey to understand the current situation regarding central venous port implantation in order to identify the ideal procedure.

Methods

Questionnaire sheets concerning the number of implantation procedures and the incidence of complications for all procedures completed in 2012 were sent to 397 nationwide designated cancer care hospitals in Japan in June 2013. Venipuncture sites were categorized as chest, neck, upper arm, forearm, and others. Methods were categorized as landmark, cut-down, ultrasound-mark, real-time ultrasound guided, venography, and other groups.

Results

We received 374 responses (11,693 procedures) from 153 centers (38.5 %). The overall complication rates were 7.4 % for the chest (598/8,097 cases); 6.8 % for the neck (157/2325); 5.2 % for the upper arm (54/1,033); 7.3 % for the forearm (9/124); and 6.1 % for the other groups (7/114). Compared to the chest group, only the upper arm group showed a significantly lower incidence of complications (P = 0.010), and multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.51–0.91; P = 0.008) also showed similar findings. Real-time ultrasound-guided puncture was most commonly used in the upper arm group (83.8 %), followed by the neck (69.8 %), forearm (53.2 %), chest (41.8 %), and other groups (34.2 %).

Conclusion

Upper arm venipuncture with ultrasound guidance seems the most promising technique to prevent complications of central venous port implantation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Niederhuber JE, Ensminger W, Gyves JW et al (1982) Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery 92:706–712

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Teichgraber UK, Pfitzmann R, Hofmann HA (2011) Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 108:147–154

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Goltz JP, Noack C, Petritsch B et al (2012) Totally implantable venous power ports of the forearm and the chest: initial clinical experience with port devices approved for high-pressure injections. Br J Radiol 85:e966–e972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander MD, Morrison HL (2012) Power-injectable ports: safety during placement, therapeutic use, and contrast administration during computed tomography procedures. J Vasc Access 13:432–437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F 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 9:767–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Craus W, Di Giacomo A, Tommasino U et al (2001) Totally implantable central venous access: 15 years’ experience in a single unit. J Vasc Access 2:161–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlo JT, Lamont JP, McCarty TM et al (2004) A prospective randomized trial demonstrating valved implantable ports have fewer complications and lower overall cost than nonvalved implantable ports. Am J Surg 188:722–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Biffi R, Toro A, Pozzi S et al (2014) Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved? Support Care Cancer 22:1705–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Biffi R, Orsi F, Grasso F et al (2000) Catheter rupture and distal embolisation: a rare complication of central venous ports. J Vasc Access 1:19–22

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McGee DC, Gould MK (2003) Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med 348:1123–1133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kusminsky RE (2007) Complications of central venous catheterization. J Am Coll Surg 204:681–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ezaru CS, Mangione MP, Oravitz TM et al (2009) Eliminating arterial injury during central venous catheterization using manometry. Anesth Analg 109:130–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pikwer A, Acosta S, Kolbel T et al (2009) Management of inadvertent arterial catheterisation associated with central venous access procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 38:707–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blaivas M (2009) Video analysis of accidental arterial cannulation with dynamic ultrasound guidance for central venous access. J Ultrasound Med 28:1239–1244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cayne NS, Berland TL, Rockman CB et al (2010) Experience and technique for the endovascular management of iatrogenic subclavian artery injury. Ann Vasc Surg 24:44–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U et al (1998) Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 22:12–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang HM, Hsieh CB, Hsieh HF et al (2006) An alternative technique for totally implantable central venous access devices. A retrospective study of 1311 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:90–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2007) Is radiologic placement of an arm port mandatory in oncology patients?: analysis of a large bi-institutional experience. Cancer 110:2331–2338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marcy PY (2008) Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology. Eur Radiol 18:2333–2344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salem RR, Ward BA, Ravikumar TS (1993) A new peripherally implanted subcutaneous permanent central venous access device for patients requiring chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 11:2181–2185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lyon RD, Griggs KA, Johnson AM et al (1999) Long-term follow-up of upper extremity implanted venous access devices in oncology patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:463–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Walser EM (2012) Venous access ports: indications, implantation technique, follow-up, and complications. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 35:751–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shiono M, Takahashi S, Kakudo Y et al (2014) Upper arm central venous port implantation: a 6-year single institutional retrospective analysis and pictorial essay of procedures for insertion. PLoS One 9:e91335

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Goltz JP, Janssen H, Petritsch B et al (2014) Femoral placement of totally implantable venous power ports as an alternative implantation site for patients with central vein occlusions. Suppor Care Cancer 22:383–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Foley MJ (1995) Radiologic placement of long-term central venous peripheral access system ports (PAS Port): results in 150 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 6:255–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Burbridge B, Krieger E, Stoneham G (2000) Arm placement of the Cook titanium Petite Vital-Port: results of radiologic placement in 125 patients with cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 51:163–169

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yip D, Funaki B (2002) Subcutaneous chest ports via the internal jugular vein. A retrospective study of 117 oncology patients. Acta Radiol 43:371–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Araujo C, Silva JP, Antunes P et al (2008) A comparative study between two central veins for the introduction of totally implantable venous access devices in 1201 cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:222–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Busch JD, Herrmann J, Heller F et al (2012) Follow-up of radiologically totally implanted central venous access ports of the upper arm: long-term complications in 127,750 catheter-days. Am J Roentgenol 199:447–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Granziera E, Scarpa M, Ciccarese A et al (2014) Totally implantable venous access devices: retrospective analysis of different insertion techniques and predictors of complications in 796 devices implanted in a single institution. BMC Surg 14:27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Wildgruber M, Borgmeyer S, Haller B et al (2015) Short-term and long-term outcome of radiological-guided insertion of central venous access port devices implanted at the forearm: a retrospective monocenter analysis in 1704 patients. Eur Radiol 25:606–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Noble WC (1975) Dispersal of skin microorganisms. Br J Dermatol 93:477–485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ryder MA (1995) Peripheral access options. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 4:395–427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goltz JP, Schmid JS, Ritter CO et al (2012) Identification of risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis in patients with totally implantable venous access ports in the forearm. J Vasc Access 13:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M et al (2012) International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med 38:1105–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marcy PY, Magne N, Castadot P et al (2005) Radiological and surgical placement of port devices: a 4-year institutional analysis of procedure performance, quality of life and cost in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:61–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marcy PY, Chamorey E, Amoretti N et al (2008) A comparison between distal and proximal port device insertion in head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1262–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Patel GS, Jain K, Kumar R et al (2014) Comparison of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC) versus subcutaneously implanted port-chamber catheters by complication and cost for patients receiving chemotherapy for non-haematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer 22:121–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Biffi R, Orsi F, Pozzi S et al (2011) No impact of central venous insertion site on oncology patients’ quality of life and psychological distress. A randomized three-arm trial. Support Care Cancer 19:1573–1580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Biffi R, Pozzi S, Bonomo G et al (2014) Cost effectiveness of different central venous approaches for port placement and use in adult oncology patients: evidence from a randomized three-arm trial. Ann Surg Oncol 21(12):3725–3731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all NDCCHs that responded to our survey for data collection in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, Tohoku University Hospital, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8574, Japan

    Masatoshi Shiono, Shin Takahashi, Masanobu Takahashi & Chikashi Ishioka

  2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Institute of Development, Aging, and Cancer, Tohoku University, Seiryo-machi 4-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Japan

    Masatoshi Shiono, Shin Takahashi, Masanobu Takahashi & Chikashi Ishioka

  3. Division of Biostatistics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi 1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi, 980-8575, Japan

    Takuhiro Yamaguchi

Authors
  1. Masatoshi Shiono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shin Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Masanobu Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takuhiro Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chikashi Ishioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chikashi Ishioka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

C. I. reports personal fees from Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Serono Japan, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., AstraZeneca K.K., Novartis Pharma K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Asahi Kasei Medical Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nippon Kayaku Co.,Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Nobelpharma Co., Ltd., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., outside the submitted work. S. T. reports personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Asahi Kasei Medical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Medicon Inc., Merck Serono Japan, outside the submitted work. M. T. reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd., outside the submitted work. C. I. reports grants from MSD K.K., Eisai Co., Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tsumura & Co., Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd., Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nichi-Iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nobelpharma Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono Japan, Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., outside the submitted work. M. S. and T. Y. have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shiono, M., Takahashi, S., Takahashi, M. et al. Current situation regarding central venous port implantation procedures and complications: a questionnaire-based survey of 11,693 implantations in Japan . Int J Clin Oncol 21, 1172–1182 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1003-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-016-1003-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation