Influence of venipuncture point and port chamber site on the risk of catheter fracture in right internal jugular port placements

Abstract

Background:

For subcutaneously implanted central venous ports, some complications due to prolonged placement have been reported. We investigated the appropriate puncture points and port placement sites to prevent catheter fracture in right internal jugular port placement.

Methods:

This retrospective study included 709 patients who underwent right internal jugular vein puncture and port implantation in the right precordium between 1 May 2012 and 31 March 2018. The cases were divided into undamaged catheter group and damaged catheter group comprising normal and fracture cases, respectively. The catheter angle, distance from the clavicle, tip position, and curvature radius were measured from fluoroscopic images obtained at the time of implantation. The t-test was used in statistical analysis.

Results:

Median angles were 91.6° in the undamaged catheter group and 58.0° in the damaged catheter group. Median distances were 26.0 mm in the undamaged catheter group and 36.6 mm in the damaged catheter group. Median tip positions were 51.6 mm in the undamaged catheter group and 37.5 mm in the damaged catheter group. Median curvature radii were 9.2 R in the undamaged catheter group and 7.1 R in the damaged catheter group. Significant differences were found in the angle, height, and curvature radius between the two groups.

Conclusion:

Our results indicate that a venipuncture as close to the clavicle as possible (less than 3 cm) and a gentle catheter curve (close to 90° angle) are associated with a lower risk of catheter fracture.

Keywords

Central venous port catheter fracture catheter ruptures mechanical port complications vascular access mechanical complications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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.

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.

Teichgräber

Pfitzmann

Hofmann

HA.

Central venous port systems as an integral part of chemotherapy. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108(9): 147–154.

Goltz

Noack

Petritsch

, et al. 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 2012; 85(1019): e966–e972.

Alexander

Morrison

HL.

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

Dariushnia

Wallace

Siddiqi

, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for central venous access. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: 976–981.

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.

Kock

Pietsch

Krause

, et al. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg 1998; 22(1): 12–16.

Yildizeli

Laçin

Batirel

, et al. Complications and management of long-term central venous access catheters and ports. J Vasc Access 2004; 5(4): 174–178.

10.

Peris

Zagli

Bonizzoli

, et al. Implantation of 3951 long-term central venous catheters: performances, risk analysis, and patient comfort after ultrasound-guidance introduction. Anesth Analg 2010; 111(5): 1194–1201.

11.

Surov

Jordan

Buerke

, et al. Atypical pulmonary embolism of port catheter fragments in oncology patients. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14(5): 479–483.

12.

Ishizuka

Nagata

Takagi

, et al. Total parenteral nutrition is a major risk factor for central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection in colorectal cancer patients receiving postoperative chemotherapy. Eur Surg Res 2008; 41(4): 341–345.

13.

Park

Kim

Lee

, et al. Central venous infusion port inserted via high versus low jugular venous approaches: retrospective comparison of outcome and complications. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72(3): 494–498.

14.

Nagasawa

Shimizu

Sonoda

, et al. Is catheter rupture rare after totally implantable access port implantation via the right internal jugular vein? Report of a case. Surg Today 2014; 44(7): 1346–1349.

15.

Plumhans

Mahnken

Ocklenburg

, et al. Jugular versus subclavian totally implantable access ports: catheter position, complications and intrainterventional pain perception. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79(3): 338–342.

16.

Feng

, et al. Catheter fracture of intravenous ports and its management. World J Surg 2011; 35(11): 2403–2410.

17.

Stonelake

Bodenham

AR.

The carina as a radiological landmark for central venous catheter tip position. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96(3): 335–340.

18.

Smith

. Choosing your reference style. Online Referencing 2(3), http://www.sweetspot-venouscatheter.com/ (2003, accessed 12 October 2008).

19.

Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 2006; 29: S1–S92.

20.

Charvát

Linke

Horaekova

, et al. Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients: single center experience. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14(11): 1162–1165.

21.

Teichgräber

Kausche

Nagel

, et al. Outcome analysis in 3,160 implantations of radiologically guided placements of totally implantable central venous port systems. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(6): 1224–1232.

22.

Kojima

Hiraki

Gobara

, et al. Fracture of totally implanted central venous access devices: a propensity-score-matched comparison of risks for Groshong silicone versus polyurethane catheters. J Vasc Access 2016; 17(6): 535–541.

23.

Balsorano

Galducci

De Fanti

, et al. Fractures of totally implantable central venous ports: more than fortuity. A three-year single center experience. J Vasc Access 2014; 15(5): 391–395.