摘要
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of venous access via the internal jugular vein (IJV) for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) placements. In Japan, TIVADs are generally placed in position by the percutaneous subclavian vein puncture approach (SVPA). However, this approach causes infrequent intraoperative or postoperative complications. Using the internal jugular vein puncture approach (IJVPA), TIVADs could be placed more easily and safely. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six patients who received TIVADs for chemotherapy of colorectal carcinomas were enrolled in this study. The choice of approach (IJVPA or SVPA) was adopted at the discretion of each doctor in charge of the patient. The operation time, success rate and complications of the two approaches were compared and evaluated. Results: TIVAD placement was successful in all patients. Thirty patients received the device via IJV puncture, but 1 patient required conversion to SVPA. Twenty-six patients underwent SVPA for device placement, but 3 of these patients required conversion to IJVPA. Mean operation time was 34.3 min in IJVPA and 35.2 min in SVPA. The success rate was 96.6% in IJVPA and 88.5% in SVPA. No severe perioperative complications were observed. However, long-term complications were observed in five cases, 3 by IJVPA and 2 by SVPA, but no significant difference in the rate of complications was observed between these two approaches. A catheter-related thrombosis was found by CT scan in 3 patients, two of whom underwent IJVPA (6.7%) and one case underwent SVPA (3.8%). Two patients received simultaneous administration of bevacizumab. Catheter infections occurred in 1 patient who underwent IJVPA (3.3%) and 1 patient who underwent SVPA (3.8%). Conclusions: The IJVPA is a safe and feasible method for TIVAD placement.
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of venous access via the internal jugular vein (IJV) for totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) placements. In Japan, TIVADs are generally placed in position by the percutaneous subclavian vein puncture approach (SVPA). However, this approach causes infrequent intraoperative or postoperative complications. Using the internal jugular vein puncture approach (IJVPA), TIVADs could be placed more easily and safely. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six patients who received TIVADs for chemotherapy of colorectal carcinomas were enrolled in this study. The choice of approach (IJVPA or SVPA) was adopted at the discretion of each doctor in charge of the patient. The operation time, success rate and complications of the two approaches were compared and evaluated. Results: TIVAD placement was successful in all patients. Thirty patients received the device via IJV puncture, but 1 patient required conversion to SVPA. Twenty-six patients underwent SVPA for device placement, but 3 of these patients required conversion to IJVPA. Mean operation time was 34.3 min in IJVPA and 35.2 min in SVPA. The success rate was 96.6% in IJVPA and 88.5% in SVPA. No severe perioperative complications were observed. However, long-term complications were observed in five cases, 3 by IJVPA and 2 by SVPA, but no significant difference in the rate of complications was observed between these two approaches. A catheter-related thrombosis was found by CT scan in 3 patients, two of whom underwent IJVPA (6.7%) and one case underwent SVPA (3.8%). Two patients received simultaneous administration of bevacizumab. Catheter infections occurred in 1 patient who underwent IJVPA (3.3%) and 1 patient who underwent SVPA (3.8%). Conclusions: The IJVPA is a safe and feasible method for TIVAD placement.
