Treatment of pediatric malignancies is becoming progressively more complex, implying the adoption of multimodal therapies. A reliable, long-lasting venous access represents one of the critical requirements for the success of those treatments. Recent technical innovations—such as minimally invasive procedures for placement, new devices and novel materials—have rapidly spread for clinical use in adult patients, but are still not consistently used in the pediatric population.
Methods
The Supportive Therapy Working Group of Italian Association of Hematology and Oncology (AIEOP) reviewed medical literature focusing on new aspects of central venous access devices (VADs) in pediatric patients affected by oncohematological diseases.
Results
Appropriate recommendations for clinical use in these patients have been discussed and formulated.
Conclusions
The importance of the correct choice, management and use of VADs in pediatric oncohematological patients is a necessary prerequisite for an adequate standard of care, also considering the increased chances of cure and the longer life expectancy of those patients with modern therapies.
GallieniM., PittirutiM., BiffiR.. Vascular access in oncology patients.CA Cancer J Clin.2008; 58(6): 323–346.
2.
PittirutiM., HamiltonH., BiffiR., MacFieJ., PertkiewiczM; ESPEN. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: central venous catheters (access, care, diagnosis and therapy of complications).Clin Nutr.2009; 28(4): 365–377.
3.
LovedayH.P., WilsonJ.A., PrattR.J..; UK Department of Health. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England.J Hosp Infect.2014; 86(Suppl 1): S1–S70.
4.
AbedinS., KapoorG.. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters are a good option for prolonged venous access in children with cancer.Pediatr Blood Cancer.2008; 51(2): 251–255.
5.
Al RaiyB., FakihM.G., Bryan-NomidesN.. Peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the acute care setting: a safe alternative to high-risk short-term central venous catheters.Am J Infect Control.2010; 38(2): 149–153.
6.
MatsuzakiA., SuminoeA., KogaY., HatanoM., HattoriS., HaraT.. Long-term use of peripherally inserted central venous catheters for cancer chemotherapy in children.Support Care Cancer.2006; 14(2): 153–160.
7.
Silberzweig JE, Sacks D, Khorsandi AS, Bakal CW; Society of Interventional Radiology Technology Assessment Committee.Reporting standards for central venous access.J Vasc Interv Radiol.2003; 14(9 Pt 2): S443–S452.
8.
CotogniP., PittirutiM., BarberoC., MongeT., PalmoA., Boggio BertinetD.. Catheter-related complications in cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: a prospective study of over 51,000 catheter days.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.2013; 37(3): 375–383.
9.
CotogniP., BarberoC., GarrinoC.. Peripherally inserted central catheters in non-hospitalized cancer patients: 5-year results of a prospective study.Support Care Cancer.2014; Epub ahead of print.
10.
CilB.E.. Radiological placement of chest ports in pediatric oncology patients.Eur Radiol.2004; 14(11): 2015–2019.
11.
CesaroS., CorròR., PelosinA.. A prospective survey on incidence and outcome of Broviac/Hickman catheter-related complications in pediatric patients affected by hematological and oncological diseases.Ann Hematol.2004; 83(3): 183–188.
12.
MarcyP.Y.. Central venous access: techniques and indications in oncology.Eur Radiol.2008; 18(10): 2333–2344.
13.
PittirutiM.. Ultrasound guided central vascular access in neonates, infants and children.Curr Drug Targets.2012; 13(7): 961–969.
14.
CohenA.B., DagliM., StavropoulosS.W.Jr.. Silicone and polyurethane tunneled infusion catheters: a comparison of durability and breakage rates.J Vasc Interv Radiol.2011; 22(5): 638–641.
15.
CesaroS., TridelloG., CavaliereM.. Prospective, randomized trial of two different modalities of flushing central venous catheters in pediatric patients with cancer.J Clin Oncol.2009; 27(12): 2059–2065.
16.
FarinassoL., BertorelloN., GarbariniL.. Risk factors of central venous lines-related thrombosis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia during induction therapy: a prospective study.Leukemia.2007; 21(3): 552–556.
17.
FratinoG., MolinariA.C., ParodiS.. Central venous catheter-related complications in children with oncological/hematological diseases: an observational study of 418 devices.Ann Oncol.2005; 16(4): 648–654.
18.
PinonM., BezzioS., TovoP.A.. A prospective 7-year survey on central venous catheter-related complications at a single pediatric hospital.Eur J Pediatr.2009; 168(12): 1505–1512.
19.
PittirutiM., BruttiA., CelentanoD.. Clinical experience with power-injectable PICCs in intensive care patients.Crit Care.2012; 16(1): R21.
20.
NifongT.P., McDevittT.J.. 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.
21.
LampertiM., BodenhamA.R., PittirutiM.. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access.Intensive Care Med.2012; 38(7): 1105–1117.
22.
KnutstadK., HagerB., HauserM.. Radiologic diagnosis and management of complications related to central venous access.Acta Radiol.2003; 44(5): 508–516.
23.
Skinner R, Koller K, McIntosh N, McCarthy A, Pizer B; United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG); Paediatric Oncology Nursing Forum (PONF) Supportive Care Group.Prevention and management of central venous catheter occlusion and thrombosis in children with cancer.Pediatr Blood Cancer.2008; 50(4): 826–830.
24.
DezfulianC., LavelleJ., NallamothuB.K., KaufmanS.R., SaintS.. Rates of infection for single-lumen versus multilumen central venous catheters: a meta-analysis.Crit Care Med.2003; 31(9): 2385–2390.
25.
CherneckyC., MacklinD., NugentK., WallerJ.L.. The need for shared decision-making in the selection of vascular access devices: an assessment of patients and clinicians.J Vasc Access.2002; 7(3): 34–40.
26.
PittirutiM., La GrecaA., EmoliA., ScoppettuoloG.. Il protocollo ISALT 2 per l'impianto degli accessi venosi centrali a lungo termine: una proposta GAVeCeLT per un approccio più sicuro e costo-efficace.Osp Ital Chir.2010; 16: 359–368.
27.
RueschS., WalderB., TramèrM.R.. Complications of central venous catheters: internal jugular versus subclavian access—a systematic review.Crit Care Med.2002; 30(2): 454–460.
28.
AvanziniS., GuidaE., ConteM.. Shifting from open surgical cut down to ultrasound-guided percutaneous central venous catheterization in children: learning curve and related complications.Pediatr Surg Int.2010; 26(8): 819–824.
29.
O'GradyN.P., AlexanderM., BurnsL.A.; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections.Clin Infect Dis.2011; 52(9): e162–e193.
30.
BruzoniM., SlaterB.J., WallJ., St PeterS.D., DuttaS.. A prospective randomized trial of ultrasound- vs landmark-guided central venous access in the pediatric population.J Am Coll Surg.2013; 216(5): 939–943.
31.
Di NardoM., TomaselloC., PittirutiM.. Ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation in infants weighing less than 5 kilograms.J Vasc Access.2011; 12(4): 321–324.
32.
VergheseS.T., McGillW.A., PatelR.I., SellJ.E., MidgleyF.M., RuttimannU.E.. Comparison of three techniques for internal jugular vein cannulation in infants.Paediatr Anaesth.2000; 10(5): 505–511.
33.
AugoustidesJ.G., HorakJ., OchrochA.E.. A randomized controlled clinical trial of real-time needle-guided ultrasound for internal jugular venous cannulation in a large university anesthesia department.J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth.2005; 19(3): 310–315.
34.
GrebenikC.R., BoyceA., SinclairM.E., EvansR.D., MasonD.G., MartinB.. NICE guidelines for central venous catheterization in children.Is the evidence base sufficient? Br J Anaesth.2004; 92(6): 827–830.
35.
CampisiC., BiffiR., PittirutiM.. Catheter related central venous thrombosis: the development of a nationwide consensus paper in Italy.JAVA.2007; 12(1): 38–46.
36.
DebourdeauP., FargeD., BeckersM.. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer.J Thromb Haemost.2013; 11(1): 71–80.
37.
Hancock-HowardR., ConnollyB.L., McMahonM.. Cost-effectiveness analysis of implantable venous access device insertion using interventional radiologic versus conventional operating room methods in pediatric patients with cancer.J Vasc Interv Radiol.2010; 21(5): 677–684.
38.
PittirutiM., La GrecaA., ScoppettuoloG.. The electrocardiographic method for positioning the tip of central venous catheters.J Vasc Access.2011; 12(4): 280–291.
39.
RossettiF., PittirutiM., LampertiM., GrazianoU., CelentanoD., CapozzoliG.. The intracavitary ECG method for positioning the tip of central venous access in pediatric patients: results of an Italian multicenter study.J Vasc Access.2012; 13: 357–365.
40.
BarrettM., ImesonJ., LeeseD.. Factors influencing early failure of central venous catheters in children with cancer.J Pediatr Surg.2004; 10(10): 1520–1523.
41.
LampertiM., MoureauN., KellyL.J.. Competence in paediatric central venous lines placement.Br J Anaesth.2014; 112(2): 383.
CordovaniD., CooperR.M.. A prospective trial on a new sutureless securement device for central venous catheters.Can J Anesth.2013; 60: 504–505.
44.
FratinoG., AvanziniS., MolinariA.C., BuffaP., CastagnolaE., HauptR.. Incidence of indwelling central venous catheter-related complications using the Sri Paran technique for device fixation in children with cancer.Pediatr Surg Int.2009; 25(7): 591–594.
45.
FratinoG., CastagnolaE., CarliniC.. A single institution observational study of early mechanical complications in central venous catheters (valved and open-ended) in children with cancer.Pediatr Surg Int.2004; 20(9): 704–707.
46.
FratinoG., MolinariA.C., MazzolaC.. Prospective study of indwelling central venous catheter-related complications in children with broviac or clampless valved catheters.J Pediatr Hematol Oncol.2002; 24(8): 657–661.
47.
JacobsB.R., SchillingS., DoellmanD., HutchinsonN., RickeyM., NelsonS.. Central venous catheter occlusion: a prospective, controlled trial examining the impact of a positive-pressure valve device.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr.2004; 28(2): 113–118.
48.
PittirutiM., EmoliA., PortaP., MarcheB., DeAngelisR., ScoppettuoloG.. A prospective, randomized comparison of three different types of valved and non-valved peripherally inserted central catheters.J Vasc Access.2014, In press.
49.
CrocoliA., MartucciC., LeopardiE.. A dedicated protocol and environment for central venous catheter removal in pediatric patients affected by onco-hematological diseases.J Vasc Access.2014; Epub ahead of print.
50.
LeeA.C.W.. Elective removal of cuffed central venous catheters in children.Support Care Cancer.2007; 15(7): 897–901.
51.
MaizlinI., CarpentierH., BlissD.. Difficult extraction of long-term central venous catheters in children—case report.J Pediatr Surg.2010; 45(8): 1720–1723.
52.
PittirutiM., CinaA., CotroneoA., Di StasiC., MalerbaM., CinaG.. Percutaneous intravascular retrieval of embolised fragments of long-term central venous catheters.J Vasc Access.2000; 1(1): 23–27.
53.
GuttmannD.M., TrerotolaS.O., ClarkT.W.. Malfunctioning and infected tunneled infusion catheters: over-the-wire catheter exchange versus catheter removal and replacement.J Vasc Interv Radiol.2011; 22(5): 642–646, quiz 646.
