Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) are essential for chemotherapy delivery but carry complication risks potentially mitigated by standardized procedures. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided internal jugular vein (IJV) TIVAP implantation under a standardized protocol in cancer patients, with a specific focus on characterizing complications and identifying risk factors.

Methods

A retrospective analysis included 175 cancer patients who underwent right IJV TIVAP implantation (B. Braun Celsite ST305P, 6.5 F) between September 2020 and March 2024. Standardized procedures mandated ultrasound-guided puncture, intraoperative fluoroscopic tip positioning (target: cavoatrial junction), and postoperative chest X-ray. Procedural success, operative time, patient demographics, comorbidities, and complications (early: ≤30 days; late: >30 days) were recorded. Multivariable Cox regression identified complication risk factors.

Results

procedural success was 100% (175/175). The mean operative time was 40 ± 12 minutes. Crucially, no early complications (0/175) occurred. Late complications developed in 14 patients (8.0%, incidence: 0.05/1000 catheter days). All late complications were skin ulcers around the port/catheter with device exposure. Multivariable analysis revealed that concurrent diabetes mellitus and hypertension (DM + HTN) was the only significant independent predictor of complications (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 12.223, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.168-127.929, P = 0.037) compared to patients without these comorbidities. Age, sex, tumor type, and BMI were not significant risk factors.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided IJV TIVAP implantation under the described standardized protocol is safe (no early complications) and effective (100% success). The predominant late complication was skin ulceration. The concurrent presence of diabetes and hypertension represents a strong independent risk factor for TIVAP-related complications, emphasizing the critical need for comprehensive preoperative risk assessment and optimization of metabolic health in these patients.

Keywords

totally implantable venous access port internal jugular vein standardized procedure safety efficacy complication skin ulcer risk factor diabetes mellitus hypertension

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Niederhuber

Ensminger

Gyves

Liepman

Doan

Cozzi

. Totally implanted venous and arterial access system to replace external catheters in cancer treatment. Surgery. 1982;92(4):706-712.

Expert Panel on Interventional Radiology: Shaw

Shah

Kapoor

, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® radiologic management of central venous access. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11S):S506-S529. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.053

Liu

Wang

Chang

Geng

. Totally implantable venous access port systems and associated complications: a single-institution retrospective analysis of 2,996 breast cancer patients. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;4(3):456-460. doi:10.3892/mco.2016.726

Tsuruta

Goto

Miyake

, et al. Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(6):2761-2768. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05122-3

Nagasawa

Shimizu

Sonoda

, et al. A comparison of outcomes and complications of totally implantable access port through the internal jugular vein versus the Subclavian vein. Int Surg. 2014;99(2):182-188. doi:10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00185.1

Sousa

Furlanetto

Hutka

, et al. Central venous access in oncology: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(Suppl 5):v152-v168. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv296

Huang

Jiang

, et al. Internal jugular vein versus subclavian vein as the percutaneous insertion site for totally implantable venous access devices: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):747. doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2791-2

Kurul

Saip

Aydin

. Totally implantable venous-access ports: local problems and extravasation injury. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3(11):684-692. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00905-1

Ruesch

Walder

Tramèr

. Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus Subclavian access--a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(2):454-460. doi:10.1097/00003246-200202000-00031

10.

Yilmazlar

Bilgin

Korfali

Eren

Ozkan

. Complications of 1303 central venous cannulations. J R Soc Med. 1997;90(6):319-321. doi:10.1177/014107689709000607

11.

Tamura

Sone

Ehara

, et al.

Is ultrasound-guided central venous port placement effective to avoid pinch-off syndrome?

J Vasc Access. 2014;15(4):311-316. doi:10.5301/jva.5000201

12.

Zhou

Qian

Han

Luo

. Implanting totally implantable venous access port via the internal jugular vein guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe in patients with breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:378. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-12-378

13.

Rabindranath

Kumar

Shail

Vaux

. Use of real-time ultrasound guidance for the placement of hemodialysis catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(6):964-970. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.07.025

14.

Frankel

Kirkpatrick

Elbarbary

, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part I: general ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(11):2479-2502. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001216

15.

Woodland

Randall Cooper

Farzan Rashid

, et al. Routine chest X-ray is unnecessary after ultrasound-guided central venous line placement in the operating room. J Crit Care. 2018;46:13-16. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.03.027

16.

Lessnau

. Is chest radiography necessary after uncomplicated insertion of a triple-lumen catheter in the right internal jugular vein, using the anterior approach? Chest. 2005;127(1):220-223. doi:10.1378/chest.127.1.220

17.

Silberzweig

Sacks

Khorsandi

Bakal

Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee . Reporting standards for central venous access. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2003;14(9 Pt 2):S443-S452. doi:10.1097/01.rvi.0000094617.61428.bc

18.

Miao

Chen

. Randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided procedure with the Seldinger’s technique for placement of implantable venous ports. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014;70(1):559-563. doi:10.1007/s12013-014-9956-x

19.

Eisen

Narasimhan

Berger

Mayo

Rosen

Schneider

. Mechanical complications of central venous catheters. J Intensive Care Med. 2006;21(1):40-46. doi:10.1177/0885066605280884

20.

Gebauer

El-Sheik

Vogt

Wagner

. Combined ultrasound and fluoroscopy guided port catheter implantation--high success and low complication rate. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(3):517-522. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.10.018

21.

Jha

Bichoo

Mishra

. Ultrasound-guided placement of central venous port systems via the right internal jugular vein: are chest X-ray and/or fluoroscopy needed to confirm the correct placement of the device. World J Surg. 2017;41(5):1396-1397. doi:10.1007/s00268-016-3811-8

22.

Hourmozdi

Markin

Johnson

Fleming

Miller

. Routine chest radiography is not necessary after ultrasound-guided right internal jugular vein catheterization. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(9):e804-e808. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001737

23.

Vezzani

Brusasco

Palermo

Launo

Mergoni

Corradi

. Ultrasound localization of central vein catheter and detection of postprocedural pneumothorax: an alternative to chest radiography. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):533-538. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c0328f

24.

Robinson

Souied

Bota

, et al. Optimal vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(3):607-620. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4868-x

25.

Wang

Lin

Chou

Lin

Huang

. Long-term outcomes of totally implantable venous access devices. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(7):2049-2054. doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3592-0

26.

Yang

Miao

Shao

Cao

. Infections related to totally implantable venous-access ports: long-term experience in one center. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;72(1):235-240. doi:10.1007/s12013-014-0443-1

27.

Samaras

Dold

Braun

, et al. Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology. 2008;74(3-4):237-244. doi:10.1159/000151393

28.

Kim

Yun

Kim

, et al. Safety and effectiveness of central venous catheterization in patients with cancer: prospective observational study. J Kor Med Sci. 2010;25(12):1748-1753. doi:10.3346/jkms.2010.25.12.1748

29.

Wang

Lee

Chen

, et al. Incidence and risk factors for central venous access port-related infection in Chinese cancer patients. J Formos Med Assoc. 2015;114(11):1055-1060. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2015.06.013

30.

Ignatov

Hoffman

Smith

, et al. An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: complications and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(3):241-246. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020

31.

Wyschkon

Löschmann

Scheurig-Münkler

Nagel

Hamm

Elgeti

. Apparent migration of implantable port devices: normal variations in consideration of BMI. J Vasc Access. 2016;17(2):155-161. doi:10.5301/jva.5000502

Safety and Efficacy of Standardized Internal Jugular Vein Totally Implantable Venous Access Ports: Focus on Complication Profile and Risk Factors

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References