Clinical outcomes of totally implantable venous access port placement via the axillary vein in patients with head and neck malignancy

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of totally implantable venous access port implantation via the axillary vein in patients with head and neck malignancy.

Materials and methods:

A total of 176 totally implantable venous access ports were placed via the axillary vein in 171 patients with head and neck malignancy between May 2012 and June 2015. The patients included 133 men and 38 women, and the mean age was 58.8 years (range: 19–84 years). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed.

Results:

This study included a total of 93,237 totally implantable venous access port catheter-days (median 478 catheter-days, range: 13–1380 catheter-days). Of the 176 implanted totally implantable venous access port, complications developed in nine cases (5.1%), with the overall incidence of 0.097 events/1000 catheter-days. The complications were three central line-associated blood-stream infection cases, one case of keloid scar at the needling access site, and five cases of central vein stenosis or thrombosis on neck computed tomography images. The 133 cases for which neck computed tomography images were available had a total of 59,777 totally implantable venous access port catheter-days (median 399 catheter-days, range: 38–1207 catheter-days). On neck computed tomography evaluation, the incidence of central vein stenosis or thrombosis was 0.083 events/1000 catheter-days. Thrombosis developed in four cases, yielding an incidence of 0.067 events/1000 catheter-days. All four patients presented with thrombus in the axillary or subclavian vein. Stenosis occurred in one case yielding an incidence of 0.017 events/1000 catheter-days. One case was catheter-related brachiocephalic vein stenosis, and the other case was subclavian vein stenosis due to extrinsic compression by tumor progression. Of the nine complication cases, six underwent port removal.

Conclusion:

These data indicate that totally implantable venous access port implantation via the axillary vein in patients with head and neck malignancy is safe and feasible, with a low axillary vein access-related complication rate.

Keywords

Totally implantable venous access port axillary vein central vein stenosis head and neck malignancy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Niederhuber

Ensminger

Gyves

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

Hall

Cedermark

Swedenborg

. Implantable catheter system for long-term intravenous chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol 1989; 41(1): 39–41.

Di Carlo

Pulvirenti

Mannino

et al . Increased use of percutaneous technique for totally implantable venous access devices. Is it real progress? A 27-year comprehensive review on early complications. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17(6): 1649–1656.

Goossens

Stas

Jerome

et al . Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2011; 19(7): 883–898.

Macdonald

Watt

McNally

et al . Comparison of technical success and outcome of tunneled catheters inserted via the jugular and subclavian approaches. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11(2 Pt 1): 225–231.

Bambauer

Inniger

Pirrung

et al . Complications and side effects associated with large-bore catheters in the subclavian and internal jugular veins. Artif Organs 1994; 18(4): 318–321.

Seo

Song

Kang

et al . A single-incision technique for placement of implantable venous access ports via the axillary vein. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 25(9): 1439–1446.

Silberzweig

Sacks

Khorsandi

et al . Reporting standards for central venous access. Technology Assessment Committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11(3): 391–400.

Pittiruti

Hamilton

Biffi

et al . ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications). Clin Nutr 2009; 28(4): 365–377.

10.

Song

Seo

Kang

et al . Innominate vein stenosis in breast cancer patients after totally implantable venous access port placement. J Vasc Access 2015; 16(4): 315–320.

11.

Randolph

Cook

Gonzales

et al . Ultrasound guidance for placement of central venous catheters: a meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 1996; 24(12): 2053–2058.

12.

Hind

Calvert

McWilliams

et al . Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327(7411): 361.

13.

Biffi

Orsi

Pozzi

et al . 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 2009; 20(5): 935–940.

14.

Calvert

Hind

McWilliams

et al . Ultrasound for central venous cannulation: economic evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Anaesthesia 2004; 59(11): 1116–1120.

15.

Biffi

Toro

Pozzi

et al . Totally implantable vascular access devices 30 years after the first procedure. What has changed and what is still unsolved? Support Care Cancer 2014; 22(6): 1705–1714.

16.

Shim

Seo

Song

et al . Incidence and risk factors of infectious complications related to implantable venous-access ports. Korean J Radiol 2014; 15(4): 494–500.

17.

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.

18.

Teichgraber

Kausche

Nagel

. Evaluation of radiologically implanted central venous port systems explanted due to complications. J Vasc Access 2011; 12(4): 306–312.

19.

Mickley

. Central venous catheters: many questions, few answers. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002; 17(8): 1368–1373.

20.

Agarwal

Patel

Haddad

. Central vein stenosis: a nephrologist’s perspective. Semin Dial 2007; 20(1): 53–62.

21.

Yevzlin

. Hemodialysis catheter-associated central venous stenosis. Semin Dial 2008; 21(6): 522–527.

22.

Fischer

Knebel

Schroder

et al . Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15(4): 1124–1129.

23.

Narducci

Jean-Laurent

Boulanger

et al . Totally implantable venous access port systems and risk factors for complications: a one-year prospective study in a cancer centre. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37(10): 913–918.

24.

Caers

Fontaine

Vinh-Hung

et al . Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13(5): 325–331.

25.

Nifong

McDevitt

. The effect of catheter to vein ratio on blood flow rates in a simulated model of peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Chest 2011; 140(1): 48–53.

26.

Sharp

Cummings

Fielder

et al . The catheter to vein ratio and rates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC): a prospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud 2015; 52(3): 677–685.