BACKGROUND Although the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing,there is still no“gold standard”for the implantation technique.AIM To identify the implantation te...BACKGROUND Although the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing,there is still no“gold standard”for the implantation technique.AIM To identify the implantation technique that should be favored.METHODS Two hundred central venous port-implanted patients in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively evaluated.Patients were assigned into two groups according to the access method.The first group comprised patients whose jugular veins were used,and the second group comprised patients whose subclavian veins were used.Groups were evaluated regarding age,sex,application side,primary diagnosis,active follow-up period in the hospital,chemotherapy agents administered,number of complications,and the Clavien-Dindo severity score.The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Mann-Whitney U test.Theχ^(2) test was used to analyze the variables.RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age,sex,side,number of chemotherapy drugs,and duration of port usage(P>0.05).Only 2 patients in group 1 had complications,whereas in group 2 we observed 19 patients with complications(P<0.05).No port occlusion was found in group 1,but the catheters of 4 patients were occluded in group 2.One port was infected in group 1 compared to three infected ports in group 2.Two port ruptures,two pneumothorax,one revision due to a mechanical problem,one tachyarrhythmia during implantation,and four suture line problems were also recorded in group 2 patients.We also showed that it would be sufficient to evaluate and wash ports once every 2 mo.CONCLUSION Our results robustly confirm that the jugular vein route is safer than the subclavian vein approach for central venous port implantation.展开更多
With the widespread adoption of ultrasound guidance,Seldinger puncture techniques,and intracardiac electrical positioning technology for the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in recent years,an incr...With the widespread adoption of ultrasound guidance,Seldinger puncture techniques,and intracardiac electrical positioning technology for the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in recent years,an increasing number of medical staff and patients now accept peripheral placement of totally implantable venous access devices(TIVADs)in the upper arm.This approach has the advantage of completely avoiding the risks of hemothorax,pneumothorax,and neck and chest scarring.Medical specialties presently engaged in this study in China include internal medicine,surgery,anesthesiology,and interventional departments.However,command over implantation techniques,treatment of complications,and proper use and maintenance of TIVAD remain uneven among different medical units.Moreover,currently,there are no established quality control standards for implantation techniques or specifications for handling complications.Thus,this expert consensus is proposed to improve the success rate of TIVAD implantation via the upper-arm approach,reduce complication rates,and ensure patient safety.This consensus elaborates on the technical indications and contraindications,procedures and technical points,treatment of complications,and the use and maintenance of upper-arm TIVAD,thus providing a practical reference for medical staff.展开更多
Background: As the prognosis of lung cancer (LC) patients improves, subcutaneously implanted central venous access device ports (CV-ports) have frequently been used for continuing chemotherapy (CC) or palliative care ...Background: As the prognosis of lung cancer (LC) patients improves, subcutaneously implanted central venous access device ports (CV-ports) have frequently been used for continuing chemotherapy (CC) or palliative care (PC). In this study, we examined the clinical course of LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports from the time of receiving chemotherapy to the endpoint of cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data and treatment history of LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports between June 2008 and November 2013 using clinical records and a pharmacy database. Results: Of the 132 LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports, 79 (59.8%) had CV-ports for CC (the CC group) and 53 (40.2%) had CV-ports for PC (the PC group). After CV-port implantation, LC patients in the CC group received a median of two regimens with a median of 6 cycles. The median survival time of patients in the CC and PC groups was 457 and 44 days, respectively. In the CC group, the median survival time of small cell and non-small cell LC patients was 342 (95% confidence interval, 235 - 627) and 563 (95% confidence interval, 368 - 728) days, respectively. Nine patients (6.8%) had their CV-ports removed due to complications. Forty (30.3%) of the 132 enrolled patients were referred for at-home PC. The at-home death rate observed among these 40 patients was 30.0% (N = 12). Conclusion: CV-ports may contribute to seamless oncological care.展开更多
Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous ac...Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous access ports without guidance in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of total 163 lung cancer patients who underwent implantations of a central venous access port for chemotherapy. 95 patients received the ports by the femoral vein blind-puncture technique and 68patients had the port implanted via the subclavian vein blind-puncture technique. The initial success rate of port implantation and the frequency of occurrence of complications were calculated. Results: The primary success rate of venous port implantation was 93.7% for femoral approach and 88.2% for the subclavian approach respectively (p < 0.05). Intraoperative complications developed in two patients (2.1%) in the femoral approach group and in five patients (7.4%) in the subclavian approach group. Although a higher intraoperative complication ratio for the subclavian approach was encountered compared to that for the femoral vein approach, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.103). Nor was there any statistically significant difference in terms of the occurrence of late complications. Conclusions: Venous access port implantation via the femoral vein approach is safe, and its success rate is very high, with the equal complication rates comparable to the subclavian approach. This approach avoids many of the intraoperative complications. Thus, the femoral vein approach for implanting a venous access port in lung cancer patients should be considered a valid, and safe technique.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Although the number of patients who need central venous ports for permanent vascular access is increasing,there is still no“gold standard”for the implantation technique.AIM To identify the implantation technique that should be favored.METHODS Two hundred central venous port-implanted patients in a tertiary hospital were retrospectively evaluated.Patients were assigned into two groups according to the access method.The first group comprised patients whose jugular veins were used,and the second group comprised patients whose subclavian veins were used.Groups were evaluated regarding age,sex,application side,primary diagnosis,active follow-up period in the hospital,chemotherapy agents administered,number of complications,and the Clavien-Dindo severity score.The distribution of the variables was tested with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Mann-Whitney U test.Theχ^(2) test was used to analyze the variables.RESULTS There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding age,sex,side,number of chemotherapy drugs,and duration of port usage(P>0.05).Only 2 patients in group 1 had complications,whereas in group 2 we observed 19 patients with complications(P<0.05).No port occlusion was found in group 1,but the catheters of 4 patients were occluded in group 2.One port was infected in group 1 compared to three infected ports in group 2.Two port ruptures,two pneumothorax,one revision due to a mechanical problem,one tachyarrhythmia during implantation,and four suture line problems were also recorded in group 2 patients.We also showed that it would be sufficient to evaluate and wash ports once every 2 mo.CONCLUSION Our results robustly confirm that the jugular vein route is safer than the subclavian vein approach for central venous port implantation.
文摘With the widespread adoption of ultrasound guidance,Seldinger puncture techniques,and intracardiac electrical positioning technology for the placement of peripherally inserted central catheters in recent years,an increasing number of medical staff and patients now accept peripheral placement of totally implantable venous access devices(TIVADs)in the upper arm.This approach has the advantage of completely avoiding the risks of hemothorax,pneumothorax,and neck and chest scarring.Medical specialties presently engaged in this study in China include internal medicine,surgery,anesthesiology,and interventional departments.However,command over implantation techniques,treatment of complications,and proper use and maintenance of TIVAD remain uneven among different medical units.Moreover,currently,there are no established quality control standards for implantation techniques or specifications for handling complications.Thus,this expert consensus is proposed to improve the success rate of TIVAD implantation via the upper-arm approach,reduce complication rates,and ensure patient safety.This consensus elaborates on the technical indications and contraindications,procedures and technical points,treatment of complications,and the use and maintenance of upper-arm TIVAD,thus providing a practical reference for medical staff.
文摘Background: As the prognosis of lung cancer (LC) patients improves, subcutaneously implanted central venous access device ports (CV-ports) have frequently been used for continuing chemotherapy (CC) or palliative care (PC). In this study, we examined the clinical course of LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports from the time of receiving chemotherapy to the endpoint of cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data and treatment history of LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports between June 2008 and November 2013 using clinical records and a pharmacy database. Results: Of the 132 LC patients with subcutaneously implanted CV-ports, 79 (59.8%) had CV-ports for CC (the CC group) and 53 (40.2%) had CV-ports for PC (the PC group). After CV-port implantation, LC patients in the CC group received a median of two regimens with a median of 6 cycles. The median survival time of patients in the CC and PC groups was 457 and 44 days, respectively. In the CC group, the median survival time of small cell and non-small cell LC patients was 342 (95% confidence interval, 235 - 627) and 563 (95% confidence interval, 368 - 728) days, respectively. Nine patients (6.8%) had their CV-ports removed due to complications. Forty (30.3%) of the 132 enrolled patients were referred for at-home PC. The at-home death rate observed among these 40 patients was 30.0% (N = 12). Conclusion: CV-ports may contribute to seamless oncological care.
文摘Background: The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare the initial success rate and rate of intraoperative and late complications between the femoral and subclavian vein approaches used to implant venous access ports without guidance in lung cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of total 163 lung cancer patients who underwent implantations of a central venous access port for chemotherapy. 95 patients received the ports by the femoral vein blind-puncture technique and 68patients had the port implanted via the subclavian vein blind-puncture technique. The initial success rate of port implantation and the frequency of occurrence of complications were calculated. Results: The primary success rate of venous port implantation was 93.7% for femoral approach and 88.2% for the subclavian approach respectively (p < 0.05). Intraoperative complications developed in two patients (2.1%) in the femoral approach group and in five patients (7.4%) in the subclavian approach group. Although a higher intraoperative complication ratio for the subclavian approach was encountered compared to that for the femoral vein approach, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.103). Nor was there any statistically significant difference in terms of the occurrence of late complications. Conclusions: Venous access port implantation via the femoral vein approach is safe, and its success rate is very high, with the equal complication rates comparable to the subclavian approach. This approach avoids many of the intraoperative complications. Thus, the femoral vein approach for implanting a venous access port in lung cancer patients should be considered a valid, and safe technique.
