European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 241-246 , March 2009

An 11-year retrospective study of totally implanted central venous access ports: Complications and patient satisfaction

  • A. Ignatov

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • O. Hoffman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • B. Smith

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • J. Fahlke

      Affiliations

    • Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • B. Peters

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biometrics, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • J. Bischoff

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • ,
  • S.-D. Costa

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Otto-von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Clinic, Otto-von Guericke University, Gerhard-Hauptmann Strasse 35, D-39108 Magdeburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 391 671 7310; fax: +49 391 671 7311.

,Accepted 19 January 2008.

References 

  1. Bow EJ, Kilpatrick MG, Clinch JJ. Totally implantable venous access ports systems for patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tissue malignancies: a randomized controlled clinical trial examining the safety, efficacy, costs, and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1267
  2. Minassian VA, Sood AK, Lowe P, Sorosky JI, Al-Jurf AS, Buller RE. Longterm central venous access in gynecologic cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191:403–409
  3. Charvát J, Linke Z, Horáèková M, Prausová J. Implantation of central venous ports with catheter insertion via the right internal jugular vein in oncology patients: single center experience. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14:1162–1165
  4. Puel V, Caudry M, Le Metayer P, et al. Superior vena cava thrombosis related to catheter malposition in cancer chemotherapy given through implanted ports. Cancer. 1993;72:2248–2252
  5. Broviac JW, Cole JJ, Scribner BH. A silicone rubber atrial catheter for prolonged parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1973;136:602–606
  6. Hickman RO, Buckner CD, Clift RA, Sanders JE, Stewart P, Thomas ED. A modified right atrial catheter for access to the venous system in marrow transplant recipients. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1979;148:871–875
  7. Gyves J, Ensminger W, Niederhuber J, et al. Totally implanted system for intravenous chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Am J Med. 1982;73:841–845
  8. Mueller BU, Skelton J, Callender DP, 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 Oncol. 1992;10:1943–1948
  9. Biffi R, de Braud F, Orsi F, et al. Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy. A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180days. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:767–773
  10. Kock HJ, Pietsch M, Krause U, Wilke H, Eigler FW. Implantable vascular access systems: experience in 1500 patients with totally implanted central venous port systems. World J Surg. 1998;22:12–16
  11. Blot F, Nitenberg G, Chachaty E, et al. Diagnosis of catheter-related bacteraemia: a prospective comparison of the time to positivity of hub-blood versus peripheral-blood cultures. Lancet. 1999;354:1071–1077
  12. Bona RD. Thrombotic complications of central venous catheters in cancer patients. Semin Thromb Hemost. 1999;25:147–155
  13. Cohn DE, Mutch DG, Rader JS, Farrell M, Awantang R, Herzog TJ. Factors predicting subcutaneous implanted central venous port function: the relationship between catheter tip location and port failure in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:533–536
  14. Gleeson NC, Fiorica JV, Mark JE, et al. Externalized Groshong catheters and Hickman ports for central venous access in gynecologic oncology patients. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:372–376
  15. Hardman D, Englund R, Hanel K. Aspects of central venous access catheter usage in patients with malignancy. N Z Med J. 1994;107:224–226
  16. Koonings PP, Given FT. Long-term experience with a totally implanted catheter system in gynecologic oncologic patients. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;178:164–166
  17. Nelson BE, Mayer AR, Tseng PC, Schwartz PE. Experience with the intravenous totally implanted port in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;53:98–102
  18. Eastridge BJ, Lefor AT. Complications of indwelling venous access devices in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:233–238
  19. Brown DF, Muirhead MJ, Travis PM, Vire SR, Weller J, Hauer-Jensen M. Mode of chemotherapy does not affect complications with an implantable venous access device. Cancer. 1997;80:966–972
  20. Kearns PJ, Coleman S, Wehner JH. Complications of long arm-catheters: a randomized trial of central vs peripheral tip location. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1996;20:20–24
  21. Stanislav GV, Fitzgibbons RJ, Bailey RT, Mailliard JA, Johnson PS, Feole JB. Reliability of implantable central venous access devices in patients with cancer. Arch Surg. 1987;122:1280–1283
  22. Deshpande KS, Hatem C, Ulrich HL, et al. The incidence of infectious complications of central venous catheters at the subclavian, internal jugular, and femoral sites in an intensive care unit population. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:13–20(discussion 234–5)

PII: S0748-7983(08)00036-X

doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2008.01.020

European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 241-246 , March 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution