Late complications associated with totally implantable venous access port implantation via the internal jugular vein
- 14 Downloads
Several studies have analyzed late complications associated with totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) implantation via the internal jugular vein (IJV); however, the reported results are inconclusive. The aim of the study is to elucidate the characteristics and risk factors of late complications associated with TIVAP implantation via the IJV.
The study included 482 patients who underwent TIVAP implantation for long-term chemotherapy and/or nutritional support between April 2012 and December 2017. Most patients (95.2%) had malignant diseases. Events requiring TIVAP removal were defined as TIVAP-related complications.
The median TIVAP and global follow-ups were 319 days (IQR 152–661) and 218,971 catheter days, respectively. The 3-year cumulative TIVAP availability rate was 70%. There were 44 complications (incidence of 9.1%; 0.201 complications/1000 catheter days). Infectious, catheter-related, and port-related complications occurred in 21, 14, and 9 patients, respectively with infectious complications occurring earlier and more frequently than catheter- and port-related complications. Multivariate analysis revealed that age < 65 years and presence of non-gastrointestinal diseases were significant unfavorable factors for TIVAP-related complications. Patients with 1 and 2 of these factors had an elevated risk (2.2 and 5.4 times, respectively) compared with those without.
Among the late complications associated with TIVAP implantation via the IJV, infectious complications occur earlier and more frequently than catheter- and port-related complications. Patients with an age < 65 years and having non-gastrointestinal diseases have a significantly high risk of TIVAP-related complications.
KeywordsTotally implantable venous access port Internal jugular vein Complication Infection
This work is supported by Japanese Red Cross Nagoya First Hospital Research Grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Expert Panel on Interventional Radiology, Shaw CM, Shah S, Kapoor BS et al (2017) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Central Venous Access. J Am Coll Radiol 14(11S):S506–S529Google Scholar
- 6.Matsushima H, Adachi T, Iwata T, Hamada T, Moriuchi H, Yamashita M, Kitajima T, Okubo H, Eguchi S (2017) Analysis of the outcomes in central venous access port implantation performed by residents via the internal jugular vein and subclavian vein. J Surg Educ 74(3):443–449PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Nagasawa Y, Shimizu T, Sonoda H, Mekata E, Wakabayashi M, Ohta H, Murata S, Mori T, Naka S, Tani T (2014) A comparison of outcomes and complications of totally implantable access port through the internal jugular in versus the subclavian vein. Int Surg 99(2):182–188PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Takehara K, Tanakaya K, Morihiro T et al (2011) Analysis of infecting organism and risk factors for infections related to totally implantable central venous access devices. J Jpn Soc Surg Infect 8(6):699–703 (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- 17.Fagnani D, Bertolini A, Catena L, Tomirotti M, Visini M, Alatri A, de Paoli A, Aondio GM, Milani M, Arpaia G, Cimminiello C, POLONORD Group, Franchi R, Porta C, Pugliese P, Borgonovo K, Duro M, Ardizzoia A, Filipazzi V, Isa L, Vergani C, Carpenedo M, Viale P (2009) The impact of antithrombotic prophylaxis on infectious complications in cancer patients with central venous catheters: an observational study. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 20(1):35–40PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Yamaguchi K, Ogata Y, Gotanda U et al (2011) The durability of subcutaneously implantable central venous catheter ports in cancer patients––the relation between parenteral nutrition and catheter related blood stream infection. J Surg Metab Nutr 45(6):185–190 (in Japanese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- 21.Biffi R, Pozzi S, Agazzi A, Pace U, Floridi A, Cenciarelli S, Peveri V, Cocquio A, Andreoni B, Martinelli G (2004) Use of totally implantable central venous access ports for high-dose chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: results of a monocentre series of 376 patients. Ann Oncol 15(2):296–300PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Lebeaux D, Larroque B, Gellen-Dautremer J, Leflon-Guibout V, Dreyer C, Bialek S, Froissart A, Hentic O, Tessier C, Ruimy R, Pelletier AL, Crestani B, Fournier M, Papo T, Barry B, Zarrouk V, Fantin B (2012) Clinical outcome after a totally implantable venous access port-related infection in cancer patients: a prospective study and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore) 91(6):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Mori Y, Nagayama S, Kawamura J, Hasegawa S, Tanaka E, Okabe H, Takeuchi M, Sonobe M, Matsumoto S, Kanai M, Muto M, Chiba T, Sakai Y (2016) A retrospective analysis on the utility and complications of upper arm ports in 433 cases at a single institute. Int J Clin Oncol 21(3):474–482PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Samaras P, Dold S, Braun J, Kestenholz P, Breitenstein S, Imhof A, Renner C, Stenner-Liewen F, Pestalozzi BC (2008) Infectious port complications are more frequent in younger patients with hematologic malignancies than in solid tumor patients. Oncology. 74(3-4):237–244PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 42.National Cancer Center Research Institute. Recent Cancer Statistics. https://ganjoho.jp/reg_stat/statistics/stat/summary.html