Assessing the time-to-removal of totally implantable venous access devices comparing valved-versus open-ended catheters in patients treated with chemotherapy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2025
Assessing the time-to-removal of totally implantable venous access devices comparing valved-versus open-ended catheters in patients treated with chemotherapy
Totally IntraVenous Acess Devices (TIVAD) are used to have long-term bloodstream access. The catheter connected to the subcutaneous chamber may be valved (TIVAD-V) or open-ended (TIVAD-O). Infectious and occlusion complications require the removal of the TIVAD. We compared the two types of catheters (TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O) in terms of time-to-removal and complication rates.
Methods:
A retrospective study of 636 patients treated for any malignancy using a TIVAD were included. TIVAD complication was defined as the occurrence of infection or occlusion requiring TIVAD removal. Risk factors of complications and time-to-removal of TIVAD were assessed by a Cox proportional hazard analysis.
Results:
A total of 55 TIVADs (8.7%) were removed including 47 for infection and eight for occlusion in 54 months. There was no significant difference in the frequency of complications between TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O. There was no significant difference in time-to-removal between TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O (17.0 months, IQR [10.5–25.0] and 18.4 months, IQR [11.5–22.9], p = 0.345, respectively).
Conclusion:
There was no difference between TIVAD with valved and open catheter in terms of complications and time-to-removal in patients treated by chemotherapy.
VesciaSBaumgärtnerAKJacobsVR, et al. Management of venous port systems in oncology: a review of current evidence. Ann Oncol2008; 19(1): 9–15.
2.
GoossensGAStasMJérômeM, et al. Systematic review: malfunction of totally implantable venous access devices in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer2011; 19(7): 883–898.
3.
LebeauxDFernández-HidalgoNChauhanA, et al. Management of infections related to totally implantable venous-access ports: challenges and perspectives. Lancet Infect Dis2014; 14(2): 146–159.
4.
LemmersNWGelsMESleijferDT, et al. Complications of venous access ports in 132 patients with disseminated testicular cancer treated with polychemotherapy. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol1996; 14(11): 2916–2922.
5.
HartkampAvan BoxtelAJZonnenbergBA, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices: evaluation of complications and a prospective comparative study of two different port systems. Neth J Med2000; 57(6): 215–223.
6.
KoolenDAvan LaarhovenHWMWobbesT, et al. Single-centre experience with tunnelled central venous catheters in 150 cancer patients. Neth J Med2002; 60(10): 397–401.
7.
FischerLKnebelPSchröderS, et al. Reasons for explantation of totally implantable access ports: a multivariate analysis of 385 consecutive patients. Ann Surg Oncol2008; 15(4): 1124–1129.
8.
PassaroGPittirutiMLa GrecaA.The fibroblastic sleeve, the neglected complication of venous access devices: a narrative review. J Vasc Access2021; 22(5): 801–813.
9.
SchwarzREGroegerJSCoitDG.Subcutaneously implanted central venous access devices in cancer patients: a prospective analysis. Cancer1997; 79(8): 1635–1640.
10.
Di CarloICordioSLa GrecaG, et al. Totally implantable venous access devices implanted surgically: a retrospective study on early and late complications. Arch Surg Chic Ill; 136: 1050–1053.
11.
BiffiRDe BraudFOrsiF, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of central venous ports connected to standard open-ended or Groshong catheters in adult oncology patients. Cancer2001; 92(5): 1204–1212.
12.
European Society of Anaesthesiology guidelines on peri-operative use of ultrasound-guided for vascular access (PERSEUS vascular access): erratum. Eur J Anaesthesiol2020; 37(7): 623.
13.
RaadIHannaHMakiD.Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect Dis2007; 7(10): 645–657.
14.
GoossensGAVerbeeckGMoonsP, et al. Functional evaluation of conventional “Celsite” venous ports versus “Vortex” ports with a tangential outlet: a prospective randomised pilot study. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer2008; 16(12): 1367–1374.
15.
HaireWDLiebermanRPLundGB, et al. Thrombotic complications of silicone rubber catheters during autologous marrow and peripheral stem cell transplantation: prospective comparison of Hickman and Groshong catheters. Bone Marrow Transplant1991; 7(1): 57–59.
16.
HaywardSRLedgerwoodAMLucasCE.The fate of 100 prolonged venous access devices. Am Surg1990; 56(9): 515–519.
17.
MuellerBUSkeltonJCallenderDP, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the infectious and noninfectious complications of an externalized catheter versus a subcutaneously implanted device in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol1992; 10(12): 1943–1948.
18.
GleesonNCFioricaJVMarkJE, et al. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol1993; 51(3): 372–376.
19.
HullJEHunterCSLuikenGA.The Groshong catheter: initial experience and early results of imaging-guided placement. Radiology1992; 185(3): 803–807.
20.
PinelliFCeceroEDegl’InnocentiD, et al. Infection of totally implantable venous access devices: a review of the literature. J Vasc Access2018; 19(3): 230–242.
21.
VidalMGenillonJPForestierE, et al. Outcome of totally implantable venous-access port-related infections. Med Mal Infect2016; 46(1): 32–38.
22.
VelioğluYYükselASınmazE.Complications and management strategies of totally implantable venous access port insertion through percutaneous subclavian vein. Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg2019; 27(4): 499–507.
23.
MermelLAAllonMBouzaE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intravascular catheter-related infection: 2009 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am2009; 49(1): 1–45.
24.
BiagiEArrigoCDell’OrtoMG, et al. Mechanical and infective central venous catheter-related complications: a prospective non-randomized study using Hickman and Groshong catheters in children with hematological malignancies. Support Care Cancer1997; 5(3): 228–233.
25.
GoossensGA.Flushing and locking of venous catheters: available evidence and evidence deficit. Nurs Res Pract2015; 2015: 1–12.
26.
HorneMKMayDJAlexanderHR, et al. Venographic surveillance of tunneled venous access devices in adult oncology patients. Ann Surg Oncol1995; 2(2): 174–178.
27.
CadmanALawranceJAFitzsimmonsL, et al. To clot or not to clot? That is the question in central venous catheters. Clin Radiol2004; 59(4): 349–355.
28.
CaersJFontaineCVinh-HungV, et al. Catheter tip position as a risk factor for thrombosis associated with the use of subcutaneous infusion ports. Support Care Cancer2005; 13(5): 325–331.
